Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@@woyax/mcp-chestnyi-znak Show the balance of marking codes for milk products."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for Chestnyi Znak (Честный Знак) — Russia's national product labelling system (True API).
Enables AI assistants (Claude, Cursor, etc.) to query marking codes, documents, warehouse balances, and participant data directly via natural language.
First MCP server for Chestnyi Znak True API.
Tool | Description |
| List documents for a product group |
| Get details of a specific document by ID |
| List marking codes included in a document |
| Search marking codes by filter criteria |
| Get public info for a list of CIS codes |
| Get product card by GTIN |
Tool | Description |
| Balance of marking codes across all product groups |
| Virtual warehouse balance for a product group |
| Check company registration status by INN |
| List withdrawal receipts for a product group |
Development of new tools is ongoing.
Related MCP server: Legion Database MCP Server
This server requires a JWT token from your Chestnyi Znak personal account. Token acquisition involves GOST cryptography (КриптоПро + УКЭП) and is outside the scope of this package.
Token retrieval can be automated — using a local КриптоПро script, a signing microservice, USB-over-IP with a hardware token, or a cloud HSM. It can also be done manually via the Chestnyi Znak web interface. The right approach depends on your infrastructure, OS, certificate type, and security requirements. Because the options and constraints vary significantly from case to case, this is treated as a separate integration task. We handle this kind of setup as well — feel free to reach out.
Token lifetime: ~8–12 hours. Update the file when it expires — the server picks it up automatically without restart.
Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:
Sandbox:
{
"mcpServers": {
"chestnyi-znak": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@woyax/mcp-chestnyi-znak"],
"env": {
"CHZ_TOKEN_FILE": "/path/to/your/token",
"CHZ_ENV": "sandbox"
}
}
}
}Production:
{
"mcpServers": {
"chestnyi-znak": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@woyax/mcp-chestnyi-znak"],
"env": {
"CHZ_TOKEN_FILE": "/path/to/your/token"
}
}
}
}CHZ_ENV defaults to "prod" if not set.
Important: the token file and the
CHZ_ENVvalue must match — a sandbox token won't work on the production endpoint and vice versa.
Variable | Required | Default | Description |
| Yes | — | Absolute path to file containing the JWT token |
| No |
| Contour: |
Built by Oleg Alekseev — ERP/AI integration architect.
💬 MAX: max.ru/id503610654564_biz
Need help integrating AI agents with your ERP, CRM, or Chestnyi Znak? Custom MCP servers, n8n workflows, AI automation — contact me.
MIT + Commons Clause © Oleg Alekseev
Free to use for personal and corporate purposes. Selling as a hosted service requires author's permission. See LICENSE for details.
Get marking code balance across all product groups for the current participant. Endpoint: GET /api/v3/true-api/elk/product-groups/balance/all
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the operation and endpoint, omitting details like authentication, rate limits, or response format (no output schema). The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 sentence plus endpoint. Every word is informative, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not describe the return value structure, which could help an agent interpret results. Sibling context is not referenced.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline 4 per guidelines. The description adds no further parameter info, but schema coverage is 100%, making additional semantics unnecessary.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'marking code balance across all product groups', and the scope 'for the current participant'. The title reinforces 'All Product Groups', distinguishing it from siblings like chz_warehouse_balance which target specific groups.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chz_warehouse_balance. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get public information about marking codes by list of CIS values. Returns status, owner, product details for each code. Endpoint: POST /api/v3/true-api/cises/info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code | |
| cises | Yes | Array of CIS (marking code) strings |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not confirm idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. As a read operation, it is likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 three sentences covering purpose, return information, and endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers the main return fields (status, owner, product details). However, it lacks information on error handling, pagination, or authorization status. For a simple batch tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'by list of CIS values', which is redundant, and 'Returns status, owner, product details' which provides output context but does not enhance parameter meaning. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'public information about marking codes' with the method 'by list of CIS values'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool chz_cis_search, which likely supports search by other criteria. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 usage when you have a list of CIS codes and need their details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chz_cis_search. No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for marking codes (CIS) by various criteria. Pass a JSON body with filter fields supported by the API. Endpoint: POST /api/v4/true-api/cises/search
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code | |
| body | Yes | Search filter body as JSON object |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions the endpoint and method, but fails to disclose required permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response format. For a search tool, this is insufficient.
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?
Two sentences, very concise, no wasted words. Could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Given sibling tools and no output schema, the description lacks differentiation from similar tools and omits return value details. Behavioral traits are missing. Incomplete for an API search 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% (both parameters described). The description adds context that body contains 'filter fields supported by the API', which is a slight improvement over the schema's generic description. 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?
The description clearly states 'Search for marking codes (CIS)', using a specific verb and resource. The title 'Search Marking Codes' reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chz_cis_info (likely get specific) and chz_doc_cis_list (by document).
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?
No guidance on when to use this search vs alternatives. Description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like chz_cis_info or chz_doc_cis_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get list of marking codes (CIS) included in a document. Endpoint: GET /api/v4/true-api/doc/{id}/cises
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code | |
| docId | Yes | Document ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose if the tool is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The endpoint suggests a GET request, but no explicit behavioral traits are stated.
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?
One sentence plus the endpoint URL, which is concise but lacks structure. No markdown or sections. Could benefit from clearly separating the action from the endpoint.
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?
No output schema, so description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of CIS codes). It does not mention pagination, format, or any additional details. For a simple list tool, the description is incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (pg: 'Product group code', docId: 'Document ID'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Get list of marking codes (CIS) included in a document'. The endpoint URL is provided, and the tool is well-distinguished from siblings like chz_cis_search and chz_cis_info by focusing on document-specific codes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, users must know the product group (pg) and document ID (docId) beforehand, but no hint is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a specific document by its ID. Endpoint: GET /api/v4/true-api/doc/{id}/info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| pg | Yes | Product group code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('get information') but does not state it explicitly or disclose any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence plus endpoint is concise but lacks front-loading of key details. Could include more context without becoming verbose.
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?
No output schema provided, and description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes. For a simple read tool, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps in expected return value.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for 'id' and 'pg'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and endpoint, delivering no extra param context.
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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific document by its ID' with the endpoint. It distinguishes from list-oriented siblings (chz_doc_list) by specifying 'by ID', but does not explicitly differentiate from other info tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like chz_doc_list or chz_cis_info. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get list of documents in Chestnyi Znak for a given product group. Returns document IDs, types, statuses, dates. Endpoint: GET /api/v4/true-api/doc/list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code, e.g. "books", "milk", "shoes" | |
| limit | No | Number of records to return (1–1000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method via the endpoint (GET) and that it returns data, but it does not mention behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.
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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the endpoint for reference. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description appropriately mentions the returned fields (IDs, types, statuses, dates). It also implies the use of the limit parameter for pagination. However, it could be improved by explicitly stating that results are paginated and how to iterate if needed.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (pg and limit) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the action ('Get list'), the resource ('documents'), the scope ('in Chestnyi Znak for a given product group'), and the returned fields ('document IDs, types, statuses, dates'). It distinguishes from siblings like chz_doc_info which likely retrieves a single document.
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 that this tool is for listing documents by product group, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., chz_doc_info for single document details) or any exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if a company is a registered participant in Chestnyi Znak by their INN (tax ID). Returns registration status and details for each INN. Endpoint: GET /api/v3/true-api/participants?inns={inns}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inns | Yes | Array of INN values to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions endpoints but omits behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid INNs, or response structure details beyond 'registration status and details'.
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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. The endpoint string is a bonus and does not add bloat. Every sentence serves a clear function without 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description provides basic purpose and endpoint. However, without an output schema, the phrase 'registration status and details' is vague. Missing context about return format, pagination (if any), or input constraints like INN format could hinder agent usage in ambiguous scenarios.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'inns' array. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that INNs are tax IDs and that each is checked individually, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'Check if a company is a registered participant' and the resource 'Chestnyi Znak by their INN'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on participant status, while siblings handle balances, documents, etc.
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 the tool is used for checking registration status by INN, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Context from sibling tools suggests distinct use cases, but the description alone lacks directive for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get product card information by GTIN code. Pass a JSON body with gtin or other product identifiers. Endpoint: POST /api/v4/true-api/product/info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code | |
| body | Yes | Request body with product identifier (e.g. {"gtin": "04607086460836"}) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The POST method is mentioned but not elaborated.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint is a helpful implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose and input structure. However, it lacks information about return values or limitations, which would help an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reinforces the body parameter as a JSON object with identifiers, but the schema already provides an example. 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 clearly states 'Get product card information by GTIN code' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the identifier type (GTIN or other) and provides the endpoint, making it distinct from sibling tools that handle balance, documents, or CIS searches.
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 the tool is for retrieving product info by GTIN, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get list of withdrawal receipts (sales/disposals of marking codes) for a product group. Endpoint: GET /api/v4/true-api/receipt/list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a GET endpoint implying a read-only operation, and 'get list' suggests no side effects. However, with no annotations, it could be more explicit about safety (e.g., no destructive actions). Does not detail pagination, ordering, or response format.
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?
Description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and endpoint.
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?
For a simple list tool with one required parameter, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the resource type (withdrawal receipts), scope (product group), and endpoint. Missing details like response structure or pagination, but not critical for selection.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'pg' described as 'Product group code'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of withdrawal receipts for a product group, using specific terms like 'sales/disposals of marking codes'. It distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like chz_doc_list, which likely deals with other document types, though not explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chz_doc_list or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, lacking context on prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get virtual warehouse balance (marking codes on hand) for a product group. Pass a JSON body with filter criteria. Endpoint: POST /api/v3/true-api/warehouse/balance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg | Yes | Product group code | |
| body | Yes | Filter body as JSON object |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function and endpoint, omitting side effects, auth needs, error behavior, or return structure. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavioral profile.
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 concise with two sentences front-loading the purpose. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint is slightly extraneous for an AI agent but does not significantly bloat the text.
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?
Given no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description lacks detail on return values, filter constraints, and valid product group codes. It leaves many contextual gaps for an AI agent to resolve.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context ('for a product group' and 'filter criteria') but does not elaborate on valid filter structures. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides essential meaning.
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 clearly states the tool gets a virtual warehouse balance (marking codes on hand) for a product group, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling chz_balance_all by narrowing to a product group.
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 usage for a specific product group but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like chz_balance_all. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0chz_balance_allchz_cis_infochz_cis_searchchz_doc_cis_listchz_doc_infochz_doc_listchz_participant_checkchz_product_infochz_receipt_listchz_warehouse_balanceEach tool targets a distinct resource or operation within the Chestnyi Znak system, such as documents, CIS codes, products, and participants. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'chz_<resource>_<action>' using snake_case. Naming is uniform and predictable, aiding in tool selection.
With 10 tools, the server covers essential query operations across multiple facets of the marking code system. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers key read operations but lacks tools for individual receipt details or document creation/modification, which are minor gaps given the apparent informational focus.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
GibsonAI MCP server: manage your databases with natural language
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for Gainium — manage trading bots, deals, and balances via AI assistants
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/woyaxnini/mcp-chestnyi-znak'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
