Jithox

Check a supplier bank change

check_payment_change

Read-only

Check a supplier's bank-detail change before the vendor record is touched: returns no_change, verify_first, stop or invalid_new_account with call-back steps. It never says an account is safe. Free, no token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`newIban`	Yes	The account number in the change request, as written — spaces and dashes are fine, e.g. "DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00".
`ibanOnFile`	No	The account currently on the vendor record.
`supplierCountry`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country where the supplier is established, e.g. BE.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`evidence`	No	Signed decision evidence, present when a signing key is configured.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedInput schema / properties / ibanOnFile / description

Previous value: -"The account currently on the vendor record. Leave it out for a first registration; the answer then says nothing could be compared."New value: +"The account currently on the vendor record."

removedInput schema / properties / ibanOnFile / maxLength
```
Removed value: -64
```
removedInput schema / properties / newIban / maxLength
```
Removed value: -64
```
removedInput schema / properties / newIban / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```

changedInput schema / properties / supplierCountry / description

Previous value: -"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country where the supplier is established, e.g. BE. When given, an account issued elsewhere is a red flag."New value: +"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country where the supplier is established, e.g. BE."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "evidence": {
+      "description": "Signed decision evidence, present when a signing key is configured.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "kind",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / supplierCountry / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{2}$"
```
First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine context beyond that: the critical caveat that it 'never says an account is safe', plus cost/auth facts ('Free, no token') and the call-back-steps behavior. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the outputs, then the reassurance that it never certifies safety. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out — yet the description still names the four verdicts, which helps the agent interpret results. Combined with the safety caveat and cost note, an agent has everything needed to call this read-only check correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (newIban, ibanOnFile, supplierCountry) fully documented including a format example, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource — check a supplier's bank-detail change — and scopes it with 'before the vendor record is touched', clearly separating it from sibling account-validation tools like verify_iban. It even enumerates the possible verdicts, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces.

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 a clear usage window ('before the vendor record is touched') and the verdict vocabulary tells the agent what each outcome means. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. verify_iban or preflight_payment) or states when NOT to use it, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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

All Jithox 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.