Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qiniso

Qiniso

Official
by qinisolabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

validate_bsn

Verify the structure and checksum of a Dutch BSN using the 11-test to ensure valid digit format, without confirming official issuance.

Instructions

USE THIS to verify a Dutch BSN (burgerservicenummer / citizen service number) before relying on it. Checks the 8–9 digit form and the '11-test' (elfproef) checksum. Validates structure only; does NOT confirm the number is issued.

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": {
      "bsn": "<bsn>"
    },
    "name": "validate_bsn"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bsnYesThe 8- or 9-digit BSN (spaces/dots ignored).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it validates structure only, not issuance. It does not mention side effects, return format, or error behavior. For a validation tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'USE THIS', and every sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., boolean). It does not. For a simple validation tool, this is a gap but not critical given the straightforward purpose.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description. The tool description reinforces the format but does not add semantic information beyond the schema (e.g., 'spaces/dots ignored' is already in the schema). 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 verifies a Dutch BSN by checking digit length and the elfproef, and explicitly distinguishes from issuance confirmation. This is specific verb+resource with differentiation from siblings.

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?

The description opens with 'USE THIS to verify a Dutch BSN before relying on it', providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also states what it does NOT do (confirm issuance), which implies when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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