Apier MCP Server

Check your fullmakt state for a company

check_fullmakt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check delegation status before acting on a Norwegian company's behalf. Returns active or pending state, scopes held and missing, and overall_status to indicate if you can proceed.

Instructions

Check your fullmakt state for a Norwegian company BEFORE acting on its behalf — the read leg of the Fullmakt Rails. Per agent principal of yours holding a live delegation there it returns: the bound system_user_id, whether the delegation is active or still pending signaturrett approval, the scopes carried, and the scopes still missing. overall_status: full (act now), partial (fix_steps names the blocker), or none — a VALID answer, not an error: 200 with empty principals[], never a 404. Reports the delegation state Apier RECORDED, not a live Altinn PDP decision. Input: { org_number } (plain 9 digits). Failure modes: SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT (needs read:altinn), VALIDATION_FAILED. To BROKER a fullmakt use request_fullmakt; to withdraw one use revoke_fullmakt; the CONSUMER-level snapshot is check_authorization. No sandbox mirror — a sandbox bearer gets SANDBOX_TOOL_UNAVAILABLE. Docs: https://www.apier.no/docs/fullmakt

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org_number`	Yes	9-digit Norwegian organisasjonsnummer of the customer company to check your fullmakt state for. Plain 9 digits (no MOD-11 check), matching the route contract.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	No
`result`	Yes	The fullmakt state: `overall_status` (full/partial/none), `principals[]` (system_user_id, statuses, active/missing scopes, valid_until), Norwegian `fix_steps`, `last_checked`. LOCAL recorded state, not a live Altinn PDP decision.
`metadata`	Yes
`justification`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description goes far beyond them by explaining that it reports the delegation state Apier RECORDED rather than a live Altinn PDP decision, that 'none' is a valid 200 response rather than a 404, that sandbox use yields SANDBOX_TOOL_UNAVAILABLE, and by enumerating failure modes. This is high-value behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Although the description is dense, every sentence earns its place: purpose, semantics, valid responses, failure modes, sandbox behavior, alternatives, and docs. It is front-loaded with the most important usage constraint ('BEFORE acting on its behalf') and remains tightly structured without fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers when to use the tool, how to interpret results, what the tool does not do, failure modes, limitations, and sibling routing. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter org_number is already fully documented with pattern, examples, and a clear description. The tool description only restates 'Input: { org_number } (plain 9 digits)', adding no substantial new meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check your fullmakt state for a Norwegian company BEFORE acting on its behalf' and identifies itself as 'the read leg of the Fullmakt Rails.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as request_fullmakt, revoke_fullmakt, and check_authorization.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('BEFORE acting on its behalf'), names the exact alternatives for other operations (request_fullmakt, revoke_fullmakt), and distinguishes itself from the consumer-level check_authorization. It also documents failure modes and sandbox behavior, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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