USE THIS to verify a Romanian CNP (Cod Numeric Personal) before relying on it — never assume 13 digits are valid. Checks the weighted mod-11 check digit. Validates structure only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnp | Yes | The 13-digit Romanian CNP (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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, already indicating a safe read operation. The description enriches this by revealing the algorithm ('weighted mod-11 check digit') and scope ('Validates structure only'). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it lacks details on the return format or error behavior.
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, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in an imperative tone and adds a technical detail in the second sentence. 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?
Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It could mention the return type (boolean or error) but the context of validation tools suggests a boolean. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and use correctly.
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 describes the single parameter 'cnp' as 'The 13-digit Romanian CNP (spaces ignored).' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no further semantic information about the parameter, 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 explicitly states the tool validates a Romanian CNP (Cod Numeric Personal), using the imperative 'USE THIS' and specifying it checks the weighted mod-11 check digit. It clearly distinguishes from the many sibling validation tools by targeting a specific national 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 advises using the tool 'before relying on it — never assume 13 digits are valid', implying it should be used when trust in a CNP is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the purpose obvious.
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.