Decode any DigiLocker document URI to identify and map it to the correct validator for further processing.
Decode DigiLocker document URI and map to validator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | DigiLocker document URI |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / uri / titleAdded value: +"Uri"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"decode_digilocker_uriArguments"Output schema / titleAdded value: +"decode_digilocker_uriDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral note that the tool maps a URI to a validator, implying it does not perform validation itself, but it does not disclose failure modes, edge cases, or any side effects beyond what the annotations already express.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the purpose and output of the tool. Every word earns its place, making it an example of concise structure.
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 with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, so much of the context is provided externally. However, the description lacks usage context – it doesn't explain practical scenarios where resolving a DigiLocker URI to a validator is useful, nor does it clarify what 'map to validator' means in terms of the returned value. The overall completeness is adequate but not strong.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% since the single parameter 'uri' is described as 'DigiLocker document URI'. The tool description largely repeats this, adding no format guidance, examples, or constraints. With the schema fully documenting the parameter, a baseline 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 ('Decode') and resource ('DigiLocker document URI') and indicates the outcome ('map to validator'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the many sibling validation/lookup tools, which typically operate on raw identifiers rather than URIs. The one-liner is unambiguous about the tool's core function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tool, nor does it specify conditions such as 'use when a DigiLocker URI needs to be resolved to a validator'. Usage must be inferred from the name and description, which is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.