ロシアの取引先（法人および個人事業主）を連邦税務局（FNS）の公開データ（EGRUL/EGRIP、EFRSB、「Transparent Business」、FSSP、KAD）を通じて検証するためのMCPサーバー。
Claude Desktop、Cursor、Claude Code、Cline、その他Model Context Protocol (MCP)互換クライアントに接続可能です。
AIエージェント（Claude、Cursorなど）は通常、ロシアの取引先に関する情報を持ち合わせていません。EGRULは検索エンジンで適切にインデックスされておらず、FNSの「Transparent Business」のデータはPOSTリクエストとCAPTCHAの背後にあり、EFRSBはHTMLを返します。このMCPサーバーは、エージェントに7つのツールを提供し、1回の呼び出しで全体像を把握できるようにします：
基本情報：名称、住所、OKVED（経済活動分類）、代表者。
存続状況：営業中、清算中、破産、清算済み、組織再編。
取引の安全性：住所の大量登録、代表者の大量登録、資格剥奪、破産、税務債務、報告書未提出、強制執行手続き、仲裁事件。
メインツールである check_contractor(identifier) は、INN（納税者番号）またはOGRN（法人登録番号）を受け取り、判定付きの集約レポート（safe_to_proceed / manual_review_required / high_risk_do_not_proceed / impossible_contractor_defunct）と具体的な推奨事項を返します。
Related MCP server: mcp-egrul
pip install atomno-mcp-fns-checkまたは uv / pipx を使用：
uv pip install atomno-mcp-fns-check
# или
pipx install atomno-mcp-fns-checkatomno-mcp-fns-check --version
# → atomno-mcp-fns-check 0.1.1
atomno-mcp-fns-check --help
# → полный список флагов: --transport / --host / --port / --log-levelデフォルトでは、パッケージはstdio-MCPサーバーとして起動します。エージェントはstdin/stdout JSON-RPCを介して通信します。シェルから直接操作するのではなく、MCPクライアントに接続してください。ネットワークシナリオ向けに、--host/--port を指定した --transport {http,sse,streamable-http} フラグが利用可能です。
mcp.json を編集します（Cursor → Settings → Cursor Settings → MCP）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"fns-check": {
"command": "atomno-mcp-fns-check"
}
}
}Cursorを再起動します。チャットで「INN 7707083893の取引先をチェックして」と尋ねると、エージェントが自動的に check_contractor を呼び出します。
claude_desktop_config.json を編集します（macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/, Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"fns-check": {
"command": "atomno-mcp-fns-check"
}
}
}Claude Desktopを再起動します。
claude mcp add fns-check atomno-mcp-fns-checkcline_mcp_settings.json に以下を追加します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"fns-check": {
"command": "atomno-mcp-fns-check",
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}ツール | 用途 | 入力 | ソース |
| メイン。 識別子による完全な検証 + 確定的な判定と推奨事項 |
| 全5種 |
| EGRUL基本カード |
| egrul.nalog.ru |
| OGRN/OGRNIPによる基本カード |
| egrul.nalog.ru |
| 存続状況の取得（詳細情報付き） |
| EGRUL + EFRSB |
| OKVEDコードと解説 |
| EGRUL + OKVED-2辞書 |
| 現在の代表者（Open Dataに基づく履歴） |
| EGRUL |
| 8つのリスクチェック（基本4 + 拡張4） |
| 全5種 |
使用される公開ソース：
egrul.nalog.ru — EGRUL/EGRIP、取引先カード。
bankrot.fedresurs.ru — EFRSB（連邦破産情報登録簿）。
pb.nalog.ru — FNS「Transparent Business」（税務債務、報告書未提出）。
fssp.gov.ru — FSSP強制執行手続きデータベース。
kad.arbitr.ru — 仲裁事件カードインデックス。
FNSレジストリのローカルスライス — 大量登録住所、大量登録代表者、資格剥奪者（atomno-mcp-fns-etl スクリプトによりFNS Open Dataからロード）。
check_contractor の応答例{
"identifier": "7707083893",
"identifier_type": "inn",
"inn": "7707083893",
"ogrn": "1027700132195",
"card": {
"name": {"full": "ПАО СБЕРБАНК", "short": "СБЕРБАНК"},
"status": "active",
"address": {"full": "117997, Г.Москва, УЛ. ВАВИЛОВА, Д. 19", "is_mass_address": false},
"director": {"full_name": "Греф Г. О.", "position": "Президент"},
"okved_main": {"code": "64.19", "name": "Денежное посредничество прочее"}
},
"legal_status": {"status": "active", "status_label_ru": "Действующее", "sources_checked": ["egrul", "efrsb"]},
"risks": {"overall_risk_level": "low", "overall_risk_score": 0, "flags": [], "errors": []},
"verdict_action": "safe_to_proceed",
"verdict_reason_ru": "Статус «Действующее», уровень риска — low (score 0/100). Препятствий к заключению сделки по открытым источникам не найдено.",
"recommendations": [
"По открытым источникам препятствий к заключению сделки не обнаружено. Соблюдайте стандартные меры должной осмотрительности (ст. 54.1 НК РФ): копия устава, приказ на руководителя, договор."
],
"sources": {"sources_queried": ["efrsb", "egrul", "fssp", "kad", "pb_fns", "registries"]},
"tier": "open",
"checked_at": "2026-04-24T20:15:00Z"
}EGRULは唯一の blocking（必須）ソースです。利用できない場合、check_contractor は SourceUnavailableError を発生させます（エージェントは人間が読めるメッセージを受け取ります）。
その他のソースは best-effort（可能な限り）で統合されます。FSSPのCAPTCHA、KADのアンチボット、pb.nalog.ruの5xxエラーなどはすべて risks.errors[] に格納され、レポート自体は失敗しません。上位レベルの判定は manual_review_required になります。
すべての設定は環境変数を通じて行います。認証情報は不要です（ソースは公開されているため）。
変数 | 説明 | デフォルト |
| キャッシュ用SQLiteファイルのパス |
|
| レジストリ用SQLiteファイルのパス |
|
| キャッシュされたカードのTTL（時間） |
|
| HTTPタイムアウト（秒） |
|
| HTTPクライアントのUser-Agent |
|
| ログレベル (DEBUG/INFO/WARNING/ERROR) |
|
テンプレートは .env.example を参照してください。
大量登録住所/代表者/資格剥奪者のレジストリは、FNS Open DataのCSV/XMLエクスポートです。パッケージには組み込みのミニシード（registries_seed.json、合成テストレコード）が含まれており、ツールが「箱から出してすぐに」動作し、テスト用INNでフラグを表示するのに十分です。
本番環境での検証には、CLI atomno-mcp-fns-etl を使用してレジストリを完全なスライスで更新してください：
atomno-mcp-fns-etl --registry mass_addresses --source ./fns_open_data/ulm.csv --commit
atomno-mcp-fns-etl --registry mass_directors --source ./fns_open_data/uchredt.csv --commit
atomno-mcp-fns-etl --registry disqualified --source ./fns_open_data/disqualified.csv --commitOpen Dataソース：
mass_addresses → nalog.gov.ru/opendata/7707329152-massreg/
mass_directors → nalog.gov.ru/opendata/7707329152-massuchredt/
disqualified → service.nalog.ru/disqualified.do
デフォルトでは、CLIは --dry-run モードで動作します（解析してサンプルを表示）。書き込みには明示的な --commit が必要です。メタフィールド <registry>.last_etl、<registry>.last_etl_source、<registry>.last_etl_count は自動的に保存されます。これらを使用してデータの鮮度をcron監視してください。
git clone https://github.com/atomno-labs/mcp-fns-check
cd mcp-fns-check
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate # Linux/macOS
# .venv/Scripts/activate # Windows
pip install -e ".[dev]"
pytest -v --cov=src/atomno_mcp_fns_checkテストにおいて外部APIは直接呼び出されません。respx（httpxのモック）と tests/fixtures/ 内のローカルフィクスチャのみを使用します。
代表者の履歴なし — FNSは検索APIを通じて変更履歴を提供していません。完全な履歴はEGRULのOpen Dataスライスをロードした後に利用可能になります（v0.5以降で計画中）。
FSSP / KADのブロック — CAPTCHAやアンチボットによりブロックされることがあります。その場合、チェックは errors[] に入り、全体的な判定は manual_review_required になります。
Transparent Business — 金額なしで事実（「債務あり」/「報告書未提出」）のみを提供します。金額はIFNS（税務署）への問い合わせが必要です。
Pro-tier（atomno-mcp-fns-check-server でのホスト型バックエンド）では、Redis 24時間キャッシュ、CAPTCHA回避のためのプロキシローテーション、EGRULの完全なOpen Dataスライス、最大100件のINNバッチチェック、LLMによるAI要約を通じてこれらの制限を解消します。バックエンド自体は公開されていません。
すべてのソースは、FNSおよび関連レジストリの公開データです。連邦法第149号「情報、情報技術および情報保護について」に基づき合法的に使用されています。
法人および個人事業主は、第152号連邦法（個人情報保護法）の対象外です。
代表者の氏名はFNSによりEGRULで公開されています。アウトバウンドの応答では、代表者のINNはマスクされます（XXX*****YY 形式）。
外部APIへの書き込み操作は一切行いません。
認証情報やトークンは不要です。ソースは完全に公開されています。
本サービスは、FNSの公開データに対するアグリゲーターおよび便利なインターフェースです。ロシア連邦税務局、EFRSB、KAD、FSSPとは提携していません。自己責任でご利用ください。
本サービスの回答に含まれる情報は、完全な法的または財務的評価に代わるものではありません。取引先との契約締結の決定は、お客様自身が行ってください。
MIT — LICENSE を参照してください。
GitHub: atomno-labs/mcp-fns-check
atomnoブランドのその他のMCPサーバー: atomno.ruカタログ（近日公開）
MCP仕様: modelcontextprotocol.io
Главный тул: полная проверка контрагента по одному идентификатору.
Принимает ИНН (10 цифр — юр.лицо, 12 — ИП/физлицо) или ОГРН (13 цифр — юр.лицо, 15 — ИП). Тип определяется строго по длине и контрольной цифре.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | ИНН (10/12 цифр) или ОГРН/ОГРНИП (13/15 цифр). Пример: '7707083893' (Сбербанк) или '1027700132195'. | |
| include_extended_risks | No | Запускать ли 4 расширенные проверки (Прозрачный бизнес, ФССП, КАД). По умолчанию True. | |
| lawsuits_threshold_rub | No | Порог фильтрации арбитражных дел в рублях. По умолчанию 1 000 000 ₽ — отсекает мелкие споры. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses identifier validation logic and parameter defaults (extended risks, lawsuit threshold), but does not elaborate on what the 'full check' entails, side effects, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds critical information: identifier formats, validation, and parameter defaults. No redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema, return values are covered. The description sufficiently explains input validation and parameter behavior for a 3-param tool. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., API keys) or how this tool relates to siblings beyond being the 'main' one, but overall it is adequate for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains identifier format and validation rules, specifies what extended risks include (4 checks: transparent business, FSSP, KAD), and clarifies the lawsuit threshold filters small disputes. Default values are contextualized.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a full counterparty check using a single identifier (INN or OGRN). It specifies validation criteria (digit length, control digit) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools (check_inn, check_ogrn) that only handle one identifier type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises when to use this tool (for a full check) and provides input validation rules. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context of being the 'main tool' implies it is the default for comprehensive checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Агрегированный риск-чек по контрагенту (8 проверок, SPEC §3.5).
Базовые 4 проверки (всегда):
mass_address — массовый юр.адрес ФНС;
mass_director — массовый руководитель (≥10 действующих компаний);
disqualified_director — руководитель в реестре дисквалифицированных;
bankruptcy_records — активные дела в ЕФРСБ.
Расширенные 4 проверки (include_extended=True):
tax_debts — индикатор задолженности по налогам (Прозрачный бизнес);
no_reporting — нет налоговой отчётности > 1 года (Прозрачный бизнес);
enforcement_proceedings — открытые исп.производства (Банк данных ФССП);
active_lawsuits — активные арбитражные дела где контрагент ответчик
(КАД), фильтр по сумме иска через lawsuits_threshold_rub.
Любая внешняя проверка может вернуть ошибку (CAPTCHA, 5xx, timeout) — она
попадёт в errors[] и не сорвёт остальные проверки.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inn | Yes | ИНН контрагента (10 или 12 цифр). | |
| include_extended | No | запускать ли расширенные 4 проверки. По умолчанию True. | |
| lawsuits_threshold_rub | No | порог фильтра арбитражных дел в рублях. По умолчанию 1 000 000 ₽ (отсечь мелкие споры). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses possible errors (CAPTCHA, 5xx, timeout) and that errors are collected without failing other checks. Reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with bullet points for readability, but slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameter details, error handling, and references SPEC. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Adequate for a tool with 8 sub-checks and error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, but description adds value by listing the specific checks controlled by include_extended and explaining the lawsuit filter threshold.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs a aggregated risk check with 8 checks, referencing SPEC §3.5. Differentiates from siblings like check_contractor, check_inn by being comprehensive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains basic vs extended checks with include_extended, and describes error handling. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but context is clear when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Полная карточка контрагента по ИНН (10 цифр — юр.лицо, 12 — ИП).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inn | Yes | ИНН контрагента. Пример: '7707083893' (Сбербанк). | |
| include_extended | No | зарезервировано для S2.x (Прозрачный бизнес). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output as a 'full card' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the input format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is terse and does not specify what the 'full card' includes, leaving some ambiguity. It adequately covers the basic purpose but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'inn' parameter by specifying the digit length for legal entities vs IPs. For 'include_extended', it clarifies it is reserved for future use, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a full counterparty card by INN, and specifies the length distinction (10 digits for legal entities, 12 for individual entrepreneurs). This is a specific verb and resource, and it helps distinguish from sibling tools like check_ogrn (which checks OGRN).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a counterparty card based on INN but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_contractor or check_for_red_flags. No when-not conditions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Карточка контрагента по ОГРН (13 цифр) или ОГРНИП (15 цифр).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ogrn | Yes | ||
| include_extended | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description only states what the tool does, not its side effects or safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description is minimal; it lacks context about the optional parameter and does not clarify the scope of 'counterparty card' relative to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'ogrn' parameter by specifying digit length (13 or 15). However, it does not mention the 'include_extended' parameter, leaving it unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a counterparty card by OGRN/OGRNIP, distinguishing it from siblings like check_inn which uses a different identifier. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the card contains, preventing a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 versus alternatives like check_inn or check_contractor. The description only implies usage when an OGRN is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
История смены руководителей и учредителей по ИНН.
На стадии S3 возвращает только текущего руководителя из egrul.nalog.ru плюс предупреждение о неполноте данных. Полная история (с датами назначения/увольнения) появится на стадии S5 после загрузки Open Data slice ЕГРЮЛ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inn | Yes | ИНН контрагента (10 или 12 цифр). | |
| depth_years | No | на S3 не используется (история пока без дат). | |
| include_founders | No | на S3 не используется (ЕГРЮЛ-search не отдаёт учредителей). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses important behavioral traits: returns only current director at S3 with data incompleteness warning, and full history only at S5. Details about parameter non-usage at S3 add transparency. Doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but given no annotations, this is good.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words; each sentence provides distinct, necessary information (purpose, stage behavior, parameter notes).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers stage-dependent behavior and parameter constraints. It doesn't detail output schema, but that's covered by the output schema itself. Sufficient for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by noting that depth_years and include_founders are not effective at S3. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'История смены руководителей и учредителей по ИНН' (History of changes of directors and founders by TIN), specifying the verb (get history) and resource (by TIN). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_inn or get_legal_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides stage-specific behavior: at S3 returns only current director with a warning, full history at S5. Also explains that depth_years and include_founders are not used at S3. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, it gives clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Текущий жизненный статус: active / liquidating / bankruptcy / liquidated / reorganizing / excluded_inactive.
Минимум один из inn или ogrn обязателен.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inn | No | ||
| ogrn | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists possible output values, which is helpful, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. There is no indication of error behavior if required parameters are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence presents the output values upfront, and the second provides a critical usage requirement. No extraneous information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists (context signals indicate it), the description does not leverage or reference it. It explains the return values but omits context about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how this tool fits into a workflow alongside siblings. The missing enforcement of the required parameter in the schema adds ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds that at least one parameter is required, without explaining what 'inn' and 'ogrn' represent, their formats, or constraints. This minimal addition does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'get_legal_status' combined with the description clearly indicates that the tool retrieves the current legal status from a list of enumerated values (active, liquidating, etc.). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'check_inn' and 'check_ogrn' which likely validate identifiers, and 'get_directors_history' which retrieves different data. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that at least one of 'inn' or 'ogrn' is required, which provides a key usage constraint. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_inn' or 'check_for_red_flags'. The guideline is present but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Перечень кодов ОКВЭД основной + дополнительные с расшифровкой по справочнику ОКВЭД-2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inn | No | ||
| ogrn | No | ||
| include_history | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but omits essential information about inputs and usage. It is underspecified for a tool with multiple optional parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of param documentation and annotations, the description is insufficient. The output schema exists but the description does not cover input semantics or invocation requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose of any parameter (inn, ogrn, include_history). The agent cannot infer how to specify input correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of OKVED codes with interpretations. However, it does not specify that the user must provide either INN or OGRN as input, which is crucial for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_inn or get_directors_history. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Диагностический тул: проверяет, что сервер запущен и доступен.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool performs a read-only check without side effects. It is adequate for a ping tool; additional details like return type are covered by the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded purpose, efficient and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no side effects), the description is complete. Output schema exists to explain return values, so no further description needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a diagnostic tool that checks server availability, using specific verb 'проверяет' and resource 'сервер'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on business data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for verifying server connectivity, which is distinct from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a simple diagnostic tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1check_contractorcheck_for_red_flagscheck_inncheck_ogrnget_directors_historyget_legal_statusget_okvedspingScored across 8 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of contractor verification: comprehensive checks by identifier, risk flags, specific identifier lookups, director history, legal status, OKVED codes, and a diagnostic ping. No overlap in purpose.
Tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb prefixes (check_, get_, ping). Minor deviation with 'check_for_red_flags' using 'for', but overall pattern is predictable.
8 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Russian contractor verification, covering all essential operations without being excessive or too sparse.
Covers core lifecycle: identifier validation, comprehensive checks, risk assessment, director history, legal status, and OKVED codes. Minor gaps like batch operations, but the main workflows are complete.
Russian company lookup (EGRUL/INN), Cyrillic search, RU page to Markdown. Pay per call in USDC.
Remote MCP server to enrich company profiles with structured B2B data and confidence scores.
MCP server for Russian books search, details, and recommendation candidates.
MCP server offering regulator-sourced legitimacy checks on investment entities by name or URL.
