Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-erid

mcp-erid

by atomno-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

verify_erid

Free validation of ERID advertising tokens: checks format, control signs, public data existence, and readability.

Instructions

Валидация токена erid: формат/контрольные признаки, найден ли по публичным данным, читаемость. Бесплатно.

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": {
      "erid": "<erid>"
    },
    "name": "verify_erid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eridYesТокен идентификатора рекламы для проверки (напр. «2Vfnxxxxxx»).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 details the validation steps (format, control signs, public data, readability) and notes the tool is free. This covers key behavioral aspects for a simple validation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every part adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It mentions the key validation aspects without over-explaining.

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% (one parameter). The description adds an example value ('2Vfnxxxxxx'), which adds clarity beyond the schema's formal definition.

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 that the tool validates an erid token, checking format, control signs, public data presence, and readability. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on auditing or compliance.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for validating erid tokens, with its purpose well-separated from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative suggestions.

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