Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

hexadata-tools

by io.github.4robot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate IBAN

validate_iban

Use this when you need to validate an International Bank Account Number before a payment or when storing supplier bank details: ISO 13616 mod-97 check digits, country-specific length and BBAN structure, plus national bank/branch checksums where they exist. Returns valid, electronic and printed formats, country, SEPA membership, and the extracted bank code, branch code and account number. Offline and deterministic for 124 countries and territories (official IBAN registry plus partial/experimental users). It does not verify that the account exists.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_iban"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanNoIBAN with or without spaces, e.g. "GB82 WEST 1234 5698 7654 32", "DE89370400440532013000", "ES9121000418450200051332".
itemsNoBatch mode: up to 500 items, each with the same fields as a single call. Omit when validating a single value through the top-level fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: offline, deterministic, 124 countries including partial/experimental registry members, and the explicit caveat that account existence is not verified. The remaining gap is what happens on an invalid IBAN — whether it returns valid=false plus reasons or an error — which matters for a validator with no 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use this when' trigger, then what is checked, then what is returned, then coverage caveats. No sentence is filler; the caveat about account existence is placed where the agent needs it.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing return fields (valid, electronic and printed formats, country, SEPA membership, bank/branch/account extraction) and stating the offline/coverage limits. Only the failure-mode behavior and the batch path are left unaddressed, which the schema partially covers for batch.

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% and the iban parameter already carries multi-format examples, so the description is not required to explain inputs; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, and notably never mentions the batch 'items' parameter (up to 500) that the schema defines.

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 (validate an IBAN) and enumerates exactly what is checked: ISO 13616 mod-97, country-specific length/BBAN structure, and national checksums. The closing line 'does not verify that the account exists' draws a concrete boundary against sibling validate_bank_account, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Gives explicit triggering situations: 'before a payment or when storing supplier bank details', which is real decision context rather than a restatement of the name. It also states an exclusion (not an account-existence check). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to use instead when the task is account verification rather than IBAN formatting.

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

All hexadata-tools toolsInspect
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