Validate up to 1000 Latin American tax, ID, or bank numbers at once. Submit items with type, value, and optional country to check each against exact check-digit rules.
Validate up to 1000 items, each {type, value, country?}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the 1000-item limit. It says nothing about what validation checks happen, whether partial failures are allowed, error reporting, or idempotency for a batch operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the 1000-item constraint and item shape are efficiently packed. It is compact rather than wasteful, though sparse.
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?
For a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know what a validation result looks like and how failures surface; neither is described. The 1-param schema is thin, so the description should carry more than it does.
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% and the items schema is a bare object with additionalProperties:true, so the description's inline item shape {type, value, country?} does add real meaning. But it omits what 'type' values are legal, what 'value' formats are accepted, and the meaning of the optional country, so the compensation is partial.
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?
States a specific verb ('Validate') and a quantified resource ('up to 1000 items'), which is clearer than a bare tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_document, leaving the agent to guess whether batch vs document is the deciding factor.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The 'up to 1000 items' hints at bulk usage, but there is no statement about choosing this over validate_document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.