GST Insights API MCP Server

get_gst_status

Check the registration status of a GST number using its 15-character ID. Returns current status with timestamp.

Instructions

Endpoint: /getGSTStatus/:gst Method: GET Description: Retrieves the status of the provided GST number. Parameters: gst (string, required): A valid GST number (15 characters). Responses: 200 OK: Returns GST status along with a timestamp. 400 Bad Request: Invalid GST number. 500 Internal Server Error: An error occurred on the server. GET /getGSTStatus/22ABCDE1234F1Z5

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": {
      "GSTNumber": "<GSTNumber>"
    },
    "name": "get_gst_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`GSTNumber`	Yes	Example value: 27AABCI6363G3ZH

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTTP method and responses but fails to state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The value 'status' is not elaborated.

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 is verbose, including raw endpoint, method, and response codes that could be condensed. It is front-loaded with the purpose but contains redundant elements like the full example curl path.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies required parameter, format, example, and possible responses. However, it lacks explanation of what the returned 'status' and 'timestamp' represent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds value by specifying the expected format (15 characters, valid GST number) and provides an example, which goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states 'Retrieves the status of the provided GST number,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish 'status' from 'details' or 'validation' as offered by sibling tools like get_gst_details_using_gst_number and validate_gst_number, causing potential confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server