Validate an ESIC employer code to confirm its correctness and format. Ensure the code matches the standard pattern for Indian ESIC registrations.
Validate ESIC employer code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ESIC employer code (XX-XXXXX-XXXXX) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / code / titleAdded value: +"Code"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"validate_esic_codeArguments"Output schema / titleAdded value: +"validate_esic_codeDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which establishes the safety profile and repeatability. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., nothing about what validation checks or how failures are surfaced), but it does not contradict the annotations, so the minimum-viable 3 is appropriate.
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 zero waste — every word contributes to naming the verb and resource. For a one-parameter tool with schema and annotations covering the details, this is appropriately minimal.
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?
Complexity is low: one required parameter, no nested objects, full schema coverage, annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. The only gap is that validation behavior (format-only vs. live registry check) is unspecified, but the structured fields carry most of the context needed to call the tool.
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%: the schema already documents the sole required parameter 'code' with its format 'ESIC employer code (XX-XXXXX-XXXXX)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
'Validate' is a specific verb and 'ESIC employer code' is a specific resource, so an agent can identify the tool's subject among ~75 siblings. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the closely-related validate_epf_code or state what validation entails (format check vs. registry lookup), so it stops short of a 5.
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, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling validators (validate_epf_code, validate_gstin, validate_pan) an agent might confuse it with. The only implied context is 'use it to validate an ESIC employer code', which leaves the agent to infer selection entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.