VerifyDesk

Validate an IBAN and BIC

validate_iban

Validates an IBAN offline against the SWIFT IBAN Registry (Release 103, Sep 2026, all 89 countries): registered country, length, the national account format (BBAN), check digits 02-98 and the ISO 7064 mod-97 checksum. Returns valid, and when invalid a stable reason_code (malformed, unknown_country, wrong_length, bad_bban_format, bad_check_digits, checksum_failed) with a human reason; on a valid IBAN, the bank_code and branch_code the registry defines for that country. Optional bic: checks the ISO 9362 format and its country code, returned as bic.valid; a BIC country that differs from the IBAN country is a warnings entry, not an invalid result. 'valid' is about the IBAN only. This checks structure, not that the account or BIC exists. Light read: costs 0.2 credit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "iban": "<iban>"
    },
    "name": "validate_iban"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bic`	No	Optional BIC (SWIFT code) of the bank holding the account, 8 or 11 characters, e.g. 'COBADEFFXXX'. Checked for format and compared with the IBAN country.
`iban`	Yes	IBAN to validate, spaces allowed, e.g. 'DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00'. Not a VAT number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / bic

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional BIC (SWIFT code) of the bank holding the account, 8 or 11 characters, e.g. 'COBADEFFXXX'. Checked for format and compared with the IBAN country.",
+  "maxLength": 40,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / iban / description

Previous value: -"IBAN to validate, spaces allowed, e.g. 'DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00'"New value: +"IBAN to validate, spaces allowed, e.g. 'DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00'. Not a VAT number."

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses offline/non-existence semantics, the stable reason_code taxonomy for invalid input, the exact return fields (valid, reason, bank_code, branch_code, bic.valid), a subtle edge case ('a BIC country that differs from the IBAN country is a warnings entry, not an invalid result'), the scope limit of 'valid' to the IBAN only, and a credit cost.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the primary action and then densely packed with return-value detail; nearly every clause adds information (registry release, reason codes, warnings semantics, cost). It is delivered as one long block without visual breaks, so a reader must parse a run-on sentence to reach the BIC rules, costing a point on structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does thoroughly: success fields, invalid reason codes with human-readable reasons, BIC validation results, and the warnings-vs-invalid distinction. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret results correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by tying the optional bic to its downstream behavior (bic.valid, country comparison, warnings rather than failure) and clarifying that 'valid' refers to the IBAN alone, which the schema cannot express. It does not restate the iban space/format syntax, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Validates an IBAN offline against the SWIFT IBAN Registry, Release 103') and enumerates exactly what is checked: country registration, length, BBAN format, check digits and ISO 7064 mod-97. This is clearly separable from siblings like verify_vat and verify_company, and the schema even adds 'Not a VAT number' to close the ambiguity.

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?

Gives strong usage context: 'offline' checking, an explicit boundary ('This checks structure, not that the account or BIC exists'), and a cost signal ('Light read: costs 0.2 credit'). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to alternatives such as verify_vat when a tax identifier is at hand, so no formal when-not/alternative guidance is named.

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

All VerifyDesk tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.