Skip to main content
Glama

tracking_history

Show how a SWIFT payment's tracking results changed over time.

Returns the DISTINCT tracking results recorded for a payment (by UETR or reference), deduplicated so ten identical re-tracks collapse to one entry while any change — a new last-update, a status change, or new bank data — appears as its own entry. Each entry includes what was ENTERED when the search was run (amount, currency, date) alongside the banks that reported data and their confirmed amount / value date.

WHEN TO USE THIS:

  • The user says the page shows different data than you see, or asks why a bank line (e.g. JP Morgan) "disappeared" or a value date differs.

  • You need to reconcile an amount discrepancy. Correspondent banks such as JP Morgan return their confirmation ONLY when the tracked amount exactly matches the payment, so a search run with the wrong amount silently drops their line. Comparing entries here — same UETR, different entered amounts, different bank data — is how you spot that the amount was the problem.

  • Before concluding "the record was consolidated" or "the bank stopped reporting", check the history: the earlier result you're being asked about is usually still here, under a different entered amount.

Each bank entry's source names the tracking SOURCE that reported it (e.g. "Standard Chartered"), not the bank at a step of the payment; track_payment names the same data by the bank at each step, so the two names differ.

Only results for the current user (plus system tracks with no owner) are returned; other users' searches of the same UETR are never shown.

Requires an API key with an active FI subscription.

Args: uetr: UETR (UUID v4) of the payment. Strongly preferred. reference: Sender's reference (MT103 Field 20) — used when no UETR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uetrNo
api_keyNo
referenceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses deduplication behavior, user-scoped visibility, the requirement for an active FI subscription, the exact-amount-matching pitfall, and the distinction between 'source' and the bank at a payment step. This is exceptionally transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a one-line purpose statement, followed by a concise behavioral explanation skewered with concrete examplesasi. The structured WHEN-TO-USE bullets earn their length by directly guiding tool selection, and the closing parameter notes are compact and informative. No sentence feels redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity)Skip: It explains output semantics, deduplication, user visibility, authentication requirements, and the relationship to track_payment. The presence of an output schema means return-value detail is already covered, so the description is complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It clearly defines uetr as 'strongly preferred' and explains reference as the MT103 Field 20 fallback when no UETR is available. The 'Requires an API key with an active FI subscription' note also contextualizes the api_key parameter even though it is not listed in the Args block.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show how a SWIFT payment's tracking results changed over time.' It then details the deduplication and change-detection behavior, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like track_payment, which is explicitly contrasted via the source-naming difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'WHEN TO USE THIS' section lists concrete scenarios, such as reconciling amount discrepancies, investigating disappeared bank lines, and checking for stale data before assuming consolidation. It also names the alternative, track_payment, and explains how the data naming differs, giving an agent clear selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources