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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bsn | Yes | The 8- or 9-digit BSN (spaces/dots ignored). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (indicating non-destructive), the description explicitly states that the tool 'does NOT confirm the number is issued,' which is a critical behavioral trait. This prevents the agent from assuming the number is valid beyond structural correctness.
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 extremely concise, consisting of just three short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with 'USE THIS,' and every subsequent sentence adds necessary detail 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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the return format (e.g., boolean). However, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and limitations, and the sibling context implies a standard validation output. Minor lack of return value info prevents a 5.
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% (the single parameter 'bsn' is fully described with type, format, and whitespace handling). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 that the tool verifies a Dutch BSN by checking digit length and the '11-test' checksum. It specifies the exact resource (Dutch BSN) and distinguishes from sibling validation tools (e.g., validate_email, validate_iban) by targeting a specific identifier.
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 begins with 'USE THIS to verify a Dutch BSN before relying on it,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but given the 50+ sibling validation tools, the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.