Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Europe Tools

by app.railway.up.mcp-europe-tools-production

validate_iban

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates an IBAN (International Bank Account Number) using the ISO 13616 MOD-97 algorithm. Supports 18 European countries: PT, ES, FR, DE, IT, NL, BE, PL, SE, DK, FI, AT, IE, GR, HU, RO, CZ, HR. Returns { valid: boolean, country: string, iban: string } — country is extracted from the 2-letter prefix. Returns { valid: false, reason: string } for malformed input. Spaces are automatically stripped before validation. Use when validating supplier bank details for SEPA transfers, processing direct debit mandates, verifying payment data in e-commerce checkouts, or any workflow requiring a verified EU bank account number. Validates structure and checksum only — does not confirm account existence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesEuropean IBAN with or without spaces. Example: 'PT50 0002 0123 1234 5678 9015 4' or 'PT50000201231234567890154'

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by detailing the return object shapes for both valid and malformed input, the automatic whitespace stripping, and the limitation that account existence is not verified.

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 concise and well-organized: purpose, return values, usage context, and limitations are each covered in a few sentences without redundancy.

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?

With a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: return formats, error handling, supported countries, and practical use cases. It feels complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already describes the iban parameter with an example. The description adds that spaces are automatically stripped, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool validates IBANs using the ISO 13616 MOD-97 algorithm and lists supported countries. It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools like validate_nif and validate_siret by focusing on bank account numbers.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit use cases are provided (SEPA transfers, direct debit mandates, e-commerce checkouts), and the description notes the tool checks structure/checksum only, not account existence. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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

All MCP Europe Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Multiple validators are differentiated by country and entity type (NIF, SIRET, TVA, IBAN). The only potential overlap is between calculate_working_days and get_portugal_holidays, but their purposes are clearly distinct: one counts days, the other lists holidays.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a lowercase verb_noun pattern, but country encoding is inconsistent: some use prefix (get_france_holidays), some suffix (validate_nif_es), and some omit it entirely (validate_nif, validate_siret). The verb set is consistent (get, validate, calculate, format), but the inconsistencies in noun structure prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct utility and the count is appropriate for the stated European business scope.

Completeness3/5

The server provides holiday data for France, Spain, and Portugal, but only calculates working days for Portugal. There is no working-days calculation for France or Spain despite equivalent holiday tools existing. Additionally, tax ID validation is limited to Portugal, Spain, and France, leaving other supported VAT/IBAN countries without fiscal identifier validation. These are notable gaps that affect agents handling non-Portuguese deadlines.

Resources