IranTools (paid)

iran_sheba

Origin URL: https://irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev Origin hostname: irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev Origin brand: IranTools - paid MCP server for AI agents Provider aliases: SHEBA validator, Iranian IBAN check, IRAN IBAN Family key: irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev::iran Endpoint: POST /api/iran/iran_sheba Summary: Validate an Iranian SHEBA (IRAN IBAN) account number with both IBAN mod-97 and Iran-specific checksum checks. Keyword: iranian sheba Keyword: iran iban Keyword: siba validation Keyword: bank account number iran Keyword: iban mod 97 Use case: validate an Iranian SHEBA account number before a bank transfer Use case: check an IRAN IBAN for a valid mod-97 checksum Use case: confirm a Iranian bank account number is well formed Source description: Validate an Iranian SHEBA (IRAN IBAN) account number with both IBAN mod-97 and Iran-specific checksum checks. Auth mode: paid

Price: $0.005 per call (USDC on Base via x402, or USDC on Tempo via MPP).

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": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "iran_sheba"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the paid auth mode and exact price ('$0.005 per call ... via x402 or MPP') and the two validation algorithms applied, but it says nothing about the return format, error/invalid-input behavior, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Heavily bloated with provider metadata (origin URL, hostname, brand, aliases, family key, endpoint, keyword lines), and the 'Summary' and 'Source description' sentences are verbatim duplicates. The actual purpose is buried after boilerplate rather than front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter validator with no output schema, the definition conveys function, use cases, and cost, but it never explains what the validation result looks like. Since no output schema exists, that gap should have been filled by the description.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter 'value' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies the input is a SHEBA/IBAN number but gives no format guidance (IR prefix, length, spaces, digits), leaving the agent to guess.

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 Summary states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate an Iranian SHEBA (IRAN IBAN) account number with both IBAN mod-97 and Iran-specific checksum checks.' This distinguishes it from sibling validators like iran_bank_card or iran_national_id, so an agent can pick it 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Three explicit use cases are given ('before a bank transfer', 'check for a valid mod-97 checksum', 'confirm a bank account number is well formed'), which clearly frame when to invoke it. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All IranTools (paid) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?