Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BharatPay MCP

BharatPay MCP

by angelina10504
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validate_pan

Validates Indian PAN format and identifies entity type (Individual/Company/HUF/Trust/Partnership Firm) from the 4th character.

Instructions

Validate Indian PAN format and identify the entity type (Individual / Company / HUF / Trust / Partnership Firm / etc.) from the 4th character.

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": {
      "pan": "<pan>"
    },
    "name": "validate_pan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
panYes10-character PAN (e.g., 'ABCDE1234F').

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions validation and entity identification but omits what happens on invalid input (e.g., error, null), auth requirements, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

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?

Has output schema but description does not elaborate on return values. Missing behavioral details like error handling. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear example. The description adds general purpose but no additional parameter-specific detail. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 validates Indian PAN format and identifies entity type from the 4th character. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which handle IFSC, GSTIN, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, sibling tools are for different entities (IFSC, GSTIN, pincode), so usage is implied. Lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools