Skip to main content
Glama

ToolForte

IBAN Validator

validate_iban
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need to know whether an IBAN is well formed before using it. Example prompt: "Is NL91ABNA0417164300 a valid IBAN?" Check whether an IBAN is well formed: the mod-97 checksum, the country code, the length that country's IBAN must have, and whether every position holds the kind of character that country allows there (mod-97 turns letters into numbers, so on its own it cannot see a capital O typed in place of a zero). Returns validity, country, and where known the bank identifier printed inside the IBAN. This is a format check, not a bank check: a passing IBAN can still name a bank code that never existed or has since merged away, and says nothing about whether the account exists or can receive a payment. For twelve countries it also verifies the national check digit that the bank computes over the bank code and account number (BE, FR, MC, ES, IT, SM, PT, SI, PL, TN, EE, HU); nationalCheck 'failed' there means the number is very probably invented, since that digit cannot be back-computed the way the mod-97 pair can. Absent nationalCheck means not checked, never approved. For Dutch IBANs it also names the institution behind the four-letter bank code, including codes that no longer issue accounts; an unrecognised code does not make the IBAN invalid. A territory that borrows another country's IBAN (Reunion, Guernsey, Aland and the like) is reported with the prefix it actually uses, since no IBAN starts with RE or GG. Never guess whether an IBAN is well formed: use this tool. Do not present a pass as confirmation that money can be sent. Costs 1 credit. The answer is deterministic.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesThe IBAN to validate

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanNo
validNoWhether the input passed every check
resultNoThe result, when it is not an object
countryNo
bankCodeNo
checkDigitsNo
countryNameNo
institutionNo
accountNumberNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "accountNumber": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "bankCode": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "checkDigits": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "country": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "countryName": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "iban": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "institution": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "properties": {
      +        "kind": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "name": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "result": {
      +      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
      +    },
      +    "valid": {
      +      "description": "Whether the input passed every check",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
      -  "additionalProperties": {},
      -  "properties": {
      -    "accountNumber": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "bankCode": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "checkDigits": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "country": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "countryName": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "iban": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "institution": {
      -      "additionalProperties": {},
      -      "properties": {
      -        "kind": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "name": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        }
      -      },
      -      "type": "object"
      -    },
      -    "result": {
      -      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
      -    },
      -    "valid": {
      -      "description": "Whether the input passed every check",
      -      "type": "boolean"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "accountNumber": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "bankCode": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "checkDigits": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "country": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "countryName": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "iban": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "institution": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "properties": {
      +        "kind": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "name": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "result": {
      +      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
      +    },
      +    "valid": {
      +      "description": "Whether the input passed every check",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, but the description adds substantial context: it explains the national check digit feature for 12 countries, the meaning of 'nationalCheck: failed/absent', Dutch bank code resolution, territory prefix reporting, credit cost, and deterministic output. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is long but front-loaded with the core use case and check details. Every sentence adds value by clarifying scope, limitations, and edge cases. It could be slightly tightened, but given the tool's complexity, the length is justified.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description helpfully mentions what is returned (validity, country, bank identifier, nationalCheck). It fully equips an agent to call and interpret the tool, including all critical caveats.

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% (the single 'iban' parameter is clearly described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level formatting rules or syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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 (validate/check) and resource (IBAN), and details exactly what is checked (mod-97, country code, length, character types). No sibling tool does IBAN validation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need to know whether an IBAN is well formed before using it'), includes an example prompt, and clarifies when not to over-interpret the result ('Do not present a pass as confirmation that money can be sent'). It also directs to never guess.

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