Skip to main content
Glama

openfang-rail

by in.akrivis.rail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

IBAN Check & Wire Fraud Shield

iban_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Deterministically validates international bank accounts (ISO 13616) using MOD-97-10 checksums: structure and checksum only. Catches mistyped or malformed IBANs before payout; a valid checksum does NOT establish account ownership, beneficiary identity, or absence of fraud. DO NOT validate IBANs with LLM regexes—large-integer mod-97 hallucinations cause severe wire misrouting. Returns offline-verifiable signed XDR-1 receipt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesIBAN to validate; spaces allowed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNo
scopeNo
validYes
reasonYes
countryNo
normalizedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "input": {
-      "iban": "GB82 WEST 1234 5698 7654 32"
-    },
-    "output": {
-      "reason": "checksum valid",
-      "valid": true
-    }
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "iban": "GB82 WEST 1234 5698 7654 32"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "reason": "checksum valid",
-    "valid": true
-  }
-]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "iban": "GB82 WEST 1234 5698 7654 32"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "input": {
+      "iban": "GB82 WEST 1234 5698 7654 32"
+    },
+    "output": {
+      "reason": "checksum valid",
+      "valid": true
+    }
+  }
+]
    • addedOutput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "reason": "checksum valid",
+    "valid": true
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses deterministic behavior, checksum-only verification, the signed offline-verifiable receipt, and explicitly warns that a valid checksum does not imply ownership or absence of fraud. This is meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core deterministic validation behavior and every sentence earns its place: scope, timing/limitation, anti-pattern warning, and receipt capability.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adds the remaining essential context: determinism, scope, limitation, and offline verification. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema fully describes the single 'iban' parameter including spaces allowed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond confirming ISO 13616 and structure/checksum scope.

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 names a specific verb ('validates'), resource ('international bank accounts (ISO 13616)'), and algorithm ('MOD-97-10 checksums'), and clearly limits scope to structure and checksum. This distinguishes it from other validation siblings by stating exactly what it does and does not certify.

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?

It states when to use ('before payout'), what it cannot establish (ownership, beneficiary identity, fraud), and warns against LLM regex validation. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative, but it gives clear use/no-use context.

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

All openfang-rail 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