io.github.olzhas-raiganiyev/goszakup-mcp

Validate BIN/IIN

check_bin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a 12-digit Kazakhstan BIN or IIN offline, including its check digit, before looking up a company or person by identifier.

Instructions

Check that a Kazakhstan BIN or IIN has 12 digits and a correct check digit.

Works offline. Use it before looking up a company or person by identifier.

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": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "check_bin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes	12-digit BIN or IIN, e.g. '123456789012'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`valid`	Yes	True when the format and check digit are correct.
`value`	Yes	The identifier as received, trimmed.
`reason`	No	Why the identifier is invalid; null when valid.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds "Works offline," which usefully confirms no network dependency or external service call is involved — though it partly overlaps openWorldHint=false. It does not say whether an invalid identifier yields a negative result or an error, but the output schema covers return values.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy: the validation criteria come first, the behavioral note and workflow hint second. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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?

For a single-parameter, offline validator with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is validated, the accepted scope, and where it fits in a workflow. The only gap is failure semantics on malformed input, which the output schema likely resolves.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 12-digit format with an example. The description restates the 12-digit requirement but adds no syntax, normalization, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (Kazakhstan BIN or IIN) plus the exact criteria applied: 12 digits and a correct check digit. An agent can tell instantly that this is a format/checksum validator rather than a lookup, and the country scoping rules out other national ID schemes.

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?

"Use it before looking up a company or person by identifier" gives explicit sequencing guidance — a pre-flight gate on identifier-based lookups. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., non-Kazakhstan identifiers) or name an alternative tool, but with only a single unrelated sibling there is little to disambiguate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server