Validate up to 500 PAN numbers in parallel to confirm their authenticity and correctness.
Validate multiple PANs in parallel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pans | Yes | List of PANs to validate (max 500) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / pans / titleAdded value: +"Pans"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"bulk_validate_panArguments"Output schema / titleAdded value: +"bulk_validate_panDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly and idempotent, so the description only adds the 'parallel' execution detail. It does not disclose potential partial-failure behavior, rate limits, or how invalid PANs are handled, but for a batch validation tool these gaps are modest.
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?
The description is a single short sentence that captures the essential action, resource, and distinguishing trait. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple, has one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations. The description could mention the max-500 limit explicitly or point to validate_pan for single PANs, but the schema and sibling list already cover those details sufficiently.
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?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter meaning: it describes 'pans' as a list of PANs with a max of 500. The tool description adds no additional semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('multiple PANs') and highlights the parallel execution, which clearly distinguishes it from the singular validate_pan sibling. It is immediately evident what the tool does.
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?
The description implies this tool is for validating multiple PANs at once, and the sibling list includes validate_pan for singular validation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over validate_pan or mention any constraints or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.