OpenVan MCP Server

Check Visa Rules

check_visa_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get entry rules for a passport and destination: stay length, day counting, visa-run resets, and temporary vehicle import, with confidence and source.

Instructions

Entry rules for one passport and destination: entry mode, allowed length of stay, how the days are counted (per entry or in a rolling window), whether a visa run resets the counter, and temporary vehicle import. Answers carry a confidence level and source — pass those on instead of stating a rule as certain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plate`	No	Plate origin for the green card rule.
`locale`	No	Language the user writes in (en, ru, de, fr, es, pt, tr). Set it on every call: the answer and the interactive card are shown in this language and units; without it the card falls back to the app's interface language.
`weight`	No	Vehicle weight class for the vehicle rule: le35 (<=3.5 t) or gt35.
`passport`	Yes	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the passport, e.g. RU.
`destination`	Yes	Destination: ISO alpha-2 code, slug or zone code, e.g. TR.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.4Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / locale

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Language the user writes in (en, ru, de, fr, es, pt, tr). Set it on every call: the answer and the interactive card are shown in this language and units; without it the card falls back to the app's interface language.",
+  "enum": [
+    "en",
+    "ru",
+    "de",
+    "fr",
+    "es",
+    "pt",
+    "tr"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.6.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: answers are probabilistic and carry a confidence level plus source, and the agent is told to propagate that uncertainty rather than assert rules. That is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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, both dense and front-loaded: the first lists exactly what rules are resolved, the second delivers the critical output caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still adds the important caveat about confidence and sourcing. The one gap is boundary-setting: it claims 'temporary vehicle import' while a dedicated get_vehicle_import_rules sibling exists, leaving overlap unresolved for the agent.

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%, so passport, destination, plate, weight and locale are all documented in the schema itself (including the green-card and vehicle-weight purposes). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that the call is pairwise. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the resource precisely (entry rules for a single passport+destination pair) and enumerates the dimensions it resolves: entry mode, length of stay, day-counting method, visa-run reset, temporary vehicle import. The phrase 'for one passport and destination' implicitly separates it from route-oriented siblings, but it never names get_route_visa_rules or get_vehicle_import_rules despite obvious overlap. Solid purpose, weak explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the stated scope: use it for a specific passport/destination pair. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of the sibling tools that also cover visa and vehicle-import rules, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer boundaries from overlap.

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