Validate, normalize, or format Latin American tax, ID, and bank numbers with exact check-digit rules. AUTO type detects document formats automatically.
Validate/normalize/format a LatAm document (AR_CUIT, BR_CPF, BR_CNPJ, MX_RFC, MX_CURP, CL_RUT, CO_NIT, PE_RUC, IBAN...). type='AUTO' auto-detects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| country | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't state what validation means (e.g., returns boolean, normalized string, error details), whether it's read-only, what happens on invalid input, or if there are rate limits. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the operation name.
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?
Two compact sentences: first states purpose and enumerates types, second gives a key parameter hint. Front-loaded and zero waste.
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 at 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain 'value' or 'country', lacks behavioral details, and provides no return value information despite no output schema.
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 parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only hints at 'type' via the AUTO example; 'value' and 'country' are completely unexplained. Does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear verb triad (validate/normalize/format) and specific resource (LatAm document), plus enumerates supported document types. Distinguishes from siblings like validate_batch by being single-document focused, though it doesn't explicitly say so.
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?
Mentions type='AUTO' auto-detects, which implies usage guidance for one parameter. However, no explicit when-to-use vs validate_batch or list_document_types, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.