USE THIS to verify a Norwegian fødselsnummer (national identity number) before relying on it. Checks the 11-digit form and both mod-11 control digits. Validates structure only; does NOT confirm the number is registered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fodselsnummer | Yes | The 11-digit Norwegian fødselsnummer (spaces 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, the description discloses the specific validation performed (11-digit form, both mod-11 control digits) and the limitation (structure only, not registration). This adds significant behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.
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: two sentences, front-loaded with 'USE THIS'. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, validation scope, and limitations. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but output schema is absent and the tool is self-explanatory.
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 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, 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 specifies the verb 'verify' and the resource 'Norwegian fødselsnummer (national identity number)'. It distinguishes this tool from over 50 sibling validation tools by explicitly naming the specific identifier and describing its function. The limitation 'does NOT confirm the number is registered' further clarifies scope.
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 instruction 'USE THIS to verify... before relying on it' provides clear usage context. It explains what the tool checks and explicitly states what it does not do. While no alternative tools are named, the set of siblings implies this is the correct choice for Norwegian national ID validation.
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.