Validate EU VAT numbers in seconds. Checks format per country and confirms registration via the official VIES API.
Scored across 2 tools
validate_vat and validate_vat_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs bulk operation, with no overlap or confusion.
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, using a predictable _batch suffix for the bulk variant.
Only two tools for a narrow validator; while single and batch cover the core need, the surface feels thin and lacks auxiliary operations such as country support or detailed lookup.
For a VAT validation service, single and batch validation fully cover the expected lifecycle; no obvious operation is missing from the stated purpose.
Validate EU VAT numbers. Checks format per country and verifies registration via the official VIES API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat_id | Yes | VAT ID to validate (e.g., DE123456789) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: validation is both a local format check and a live lookup against the official VIES API. However, it omits operational traits such as external-service latency/failure, rate limits, and what a failed registration check implies, which matter for a network-dependent validator.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the verification mechanism second. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the two-stage check but, since no output schema exists, it should indicate what comes back (e.g., valid/invalid, registration status). As written, an agent knows how to call it but not what to expect in the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents vat_id with an example (DE123456789). The description adds no country-code or format guidance beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (validate) and resource (EU VAT numbers), plus the mechanism (format check per country, registration verification via VIES). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_vat_batch, leaving the single-vs-bulk boundary implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the batch alternative. An agent must infer that this is for a single VAT ID while validate_vat_batch handles many, which is exactly the distinction the description should make.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate multiple VAT numbers at once. Returns a structured report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat_ids | Yes | VAT IDs separated by newlines or commas |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says a report is returned but discloses nothing about validation semantics, rate limits, partial failures, or error handling for malformed entries. 'Returns a structured report' is the only behavioral hint and it is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the batch scope. No filler, though the return-value sentence is nearly contentless.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description should carry both the safety profile and the return shape. It states only that a 'structured report' is returned, which is too vague for an agent to use the result reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that vat_ids accepts newline- or comma-separated values. The description adds no syntax, format, or limit details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb+resource: 'Validate multiple VAT numbers at once.' The batch nature distinguishes it from the single-value sibling validate_vat, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling validate_vat. An agent must infer that this is for batch workloads rather than single validations purely from the phrase 'multiple ... at once.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
validate_vatvalidate_vat_batch
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.