Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

upload_banking_document

Upload a proof-of-address document

Attaches a proof-of-address document to the banking application, for the cases where the partner asks for one. The application must already exist and have an individual on it, so complete the application first.

Two things reject uploads that otherwise look fine. A .jpg file must be sent as fileType: "jpeg" — "jpg" is refused. And the partner caps the decoded size at 10MB, even though their own upload page advertises 20MB; oversized files are rejected here before the round-trip.

fileContent accepts either a bare base64 string or a data: URL, so a browser FileReader.readAsDataURL result can be passed through unchanged.

Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYesThe document's country, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.
fileTypeYesThe file's format. Send a .jpg as `jpeg`.
filenameNoThe file's name.
auth_tokenNoLaso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.
fileContentYesThe file, base64-encoded. A `data:` URL is also accepted. Decoded size must be 10MB or less.
documentTypeYesThe kind of document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "documentId": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two critical edge cases: jpg must be sent as jpeg, and decoded size is capped at 10MB despite the partner advertising 20MB. It also documents that data: URLs are accepted. These are valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not mention the response format or any side effects, which is acceptable given the lack of an output schema.

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 well-structured: it opens with purpose, then a prerequisite, then bolded critical rejection reasons, then an explanation of fileContent. Each sentence serves a purpose and the formatting (bold, paragraphs) aids scanning. It is slightly longer than minimal but efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an upload tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, key constraints, and parameter quirks. It does not explain authentication, but that is present in the schema (auth_token) and not required for a basic call. The main omission is a note about the response or error handling, but that is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to fileType (jpg→jpeg) and fileContent (data: URL acceptance, size cap). It does not add detail for documentType or country beyond the schema, but the added insights for two parameters justify a 4.

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 ('Upload a proof-of-address document'), and further clarifies it attaches to a banking application. The description clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like submit_banking_application or list_banking_documents by focusing on the document-upload action and its purpose.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use ('when the partner asks for one') and a prerequisite ('complete the application first'). It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Laso Finance toolsInspect
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.

Resources