Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ares-mcp

ares-mcp

by milos106
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ares_validate_ico

Validate a Czech IČO using the ČSÚ Mod-11 checksum. Returns the normalized 8-digit number and checksum validity.

Instructions

Validate a Czech IČO via the ČSÚ Mod-11 checksum. Pure function — does not call ARES. Returns the normalized 8-digit IČO and whether the checksum is valid.

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": {
      "ico": "<ico>"
    },
    "name": "ares_validate_ico"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
icoYesCzech IČO (Identifikační číslo osoby). Accepts 1–8 digits, optional 'CZ' prefix, whitespace, dashes or dots. Examples: '27074358', 'CZ27074358', '270 743 58'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pure, side-effect-free nature, the lack of ARES calls, and the return value (normalized IČO and validity). Minor edge cases like error behavior for malformed input are not described, but this is acceptable for a pure validation function.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler or redundancy. Every clause contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter fully covered by the schema. The description states the return fields explicitly, making it complete despite the lack of an output schema. Any missing error-behavior details are non-critical for typical usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, fully documenting the `ico` parameter with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to the normalized output, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a Czech IČO using the ČSÚ Mod-11 checksum and identifies it as a pure function. It explicitly contrasts with the ARES lookup siblings by saying 'does not call ARES,' making its scope unique.

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?

'Pure function — does not call ARES' signals this is for quick local validation rather than authoritative ARES lookups, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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