GST Insights API MCP Server

get_gst_details_using_pan

Retrieve Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration details associated with a PAN number through the GST Insights API.

Instructions

Endpoint: /getGSTDetailsUsingPAN/:pan Method: GET Description: Fetches GST details using the provided PAN number. Parameters: pan (string, required): A valid PAN number (10 characters). Responses: 200 OK: Returns GST details along with a timestamp. 400 Bad Request: Invalid PAN number. 500 Internal Server Error: An error occurred on the server. Example Request: GET /getGSTDetailsUsingPAN/ABCDE1234F

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "panCard": "<panCard>"
    },
    "name": "get_gst_details_using_pan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`panCard`	Yes	Example value: AABCI6363G

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses HTTP responses (200, 400, 500) and mentions a timestamp, but does not address read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description includes redundant sections (e.g., repeating endpoint and method) and is longer than necessary. However, it is organized clearly with segmented info. Some sentences could be streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 1-param tool without output schema, the description covers core aspects: purpose, input, responses, and an example. However, it lacks a breakdown of the return data fields, which would enhance completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage with a description example. The description adds format and length details (e.g., 'valid PAN number (10 characters)') that supplement the schema, providing clear parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches GST details using a PAN number. It specifies the resource (GST details) and the input key (PAN number), distinguishing it from siblings that use GST number or company name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for PAN-based queries but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server