Skip to main content
Glama

Validate a Kazakhstan IBAN

validate_kz_iban
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a Kazakhstan IBAN (ISO 7064 mod-97 + KZ structure). Free.

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_kz_iban"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYes20 characters starting with KZ, spaces allowed, e.g. KZ86125KZT5004100100

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / iban / description
      Added value: +"20 characters starting with KZ, spaces allowed, e.g. KZ86125KZT5004100100"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the validation algorithm (ISO 7064 mod-97 plus KZ structure) and cost, but does not say what the tool returns or how invalid input is reported.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the key algorithm detail in parentheses. The trailing 'Free.' is minor marketing but does not undermine clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple one-parameter validation tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate the return shape, such as a boolean or structured error details, leaving a small but real gap for callers.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single iban parameter is documented with length, prefix, spaces, and an example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Validate) and resource (Kazakhstan IBAN), and the country/identifier scope distinguishes it from the sibling validate_iin. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_iin or lei_lookup, nor any when-not conditions. The purpose is self-evident, but the description leaves usage routing entirely to inference.

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