ibanforge
Server Details
IBAN validation, BIC/SWIFT lookup, Swiss BC-Nummer, EMI/vIBAN, SEPA + VoP, compliance scoring.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- cammac-creator/ibanforge
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- ibanforge
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single IBAN validation, batch validation, compliance check, BIC lookup, and Swiss clearing lookup. No overlaps.
All names use snake_case and verbs like 'validate', 'check', 'lookup'. Minor variation in verb choice but pattern is consistent and predictable.
Five tools cover key operations (IBAN validation, batch, compliance, BIC lookup, Swiss-specific) without bloat or deficiency.
The tool surface covers all common IBAN-related tasks: validation, enrichment, batch processing, compliance screening, and two lookup types. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
5 toolsbatch_validate_ibanBatch Validate IBANsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Validate up to 100 IBANs in a single call (10x cheaper per IBAN than calling validate_iban repeatedly). USE WHEN: the user pastes a list of IBANs, asks to clean a CSV/spreadsheet of bank accounts, asks to dedupe a customer database, asks to triage a payout list before sending, or whenever you would otherwise call validate_iban more than 2-3 times in a row. RETURNS: array of per-IBAN results (same shape as validate_iban) + a summary { total, valid, invalid, by_country, by_issuer_class }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ibans | Yes | Array of IBANs (1-100) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of IBANs processed. |
| results | Yes | One result per input IBAN, in the same order. Same shape as validate_iban. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent; description adds return shape (array of per-IBAN results + summary) and cost savings. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences front-loading purpose, then usage guidance, then return structure. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch validation with one param and no output schema, the description covers use cases, return shape, and cost. Minor gap on error handling but still sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning to the 'ibans' parameter beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Validate') and resource ('up to 100 IBANs in a single call'), with explicit differentiation from sibling 'validate_iban' via cost and batch size.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'USE WHEN' scenarios and a clear threshold ('more than 2-3 times') for preferring this over the single-IBAN sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_complianceCompliance CheckARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Run a full pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN before sending a SEPA / cross-border payment. USE WHEN: the user is about to send a payment / payout / refund and wants to triage risk first, asks "is this IBAN safe to pay?", asks for sanctions screening, asks if a SEPA Instant transfer will succeed, or needs a numeric risk score for an internal payment-approval workflow. NOT A REGULATED AML/CFT PRODUCT — informational triage only. For regulated screening use Refinitiv, Acuris, or ComplyAdvantage. CHECKS: IBAN validity + sanctions (OFAC/EU/UN consolidated, FATF jurisdictions) + SEPA Instant reachability + VoP (EU 2024/886) participant. RETURNS: risk_score (0-100, 0 = safest), flags { sanctions_match, fatf_high_risk, sepa_unreachable, viban, emi }, recommended_action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | IBAN to check |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bic | No | |
| iban | Yes | |
| sepa | No | |
| error | No | |
| valid | Yes | |
| issuer | No | |
| country | No | |
| cost_usdc | Yes | |
| compliance | Yes | |
| error_detail | No | |
| risk_indicators | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing checks performed (IBAN validity, sanctions, SEPA Instant reachability, VoP) and return fields (risk_score, flags, recommended_action), without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT, CHECKS, RETURNS). Front-loaded main purpose. Slightly verbose but every sentence is informative. Efficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has one input parameter and no output schema, but description compensates by explicitly listing all return values (risk_score, flags, recommended_action) and checks. Complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'iban' described as 'IBAN to check'. Description mentions IBAN validity but adds no substantial semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Run a full pre-flight compliance check on an IBAN before sending a SEPA / cross-border payment.' It specifies the resource (IBAN), verb (check compliance), and scope. Distinguished from siblings like validate_iban by focusing on compliance and sanctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit USE WHEN scenarios are listed, along with a clear disclaimer 'NOT A REGULATED AML/CFT PRODUCT — informational triage only.' It also names alternatives for regulated screening (Refinitiv, Acuris, ComplyAdvantage), providing excellent guidance on when to use vs. not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_bicLookup BIC/SWIFTARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Resolve a BIC / SWIFT code into the underlying bank: name, country, city, LEI, address. USE WHEN: the user already has a BIC/SWIFT (8 or 11 chars, alphanumeric, e.g., "UBSWCHZH80A", "DEUTDEFF") and asks which bank it belongs to, where the bank is, or its LEI for compliance/regulatory matching. DO NOT USE for IBAN inputs — call validate_iban instead, it resolves the BIC for you. BACKED BY: 121,197 GLEIF entries with LEI enrichment, refreshed weekly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bic | Yes | BIC/SWIFT code (8 or 11 chars) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bic | Yes | Echo of the input, normalized to uppercase. |
| lei | No | Legal Entity Identifier (ISO 17442) if available. |
| bic8 | No | 8-char form (institution-level). |
| city | No | |
| bic11 | No | 11-char form including branch. |
| error | No | |
| found | No | |
| valid | No | Set when the BIC failed format validation. |
| lei_status | No | |
| branch_code | No | |
| branch_info | No | |
| institution | No | Bank legal name. |
| is_test_bic | No | |
| country_code | No | |
| country_name | No | |
| valid_format | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by stating the data source (121,197 GLEIF entries with LEI enrichment) and refresh frequency (weekly), providing useful context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidelines, alternatives, and data provenance. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: it lists the output fields, provides example inputs, and states the data source currency. No critical information is missing for this lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter. The description adds meaningful details: examples of valid codes (e.g., 'UBSWCHZH80A', 'DEUTDEFF') and format specifics (8 or 11 chars, alphanumeric), which help the agent understand input expectations beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'BIC/SWIFT code', and lists the output fields (name, country, city, LEI, address). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning that 'validate_iban' should be used for IBAN inputs, and the sibling list includes clearly different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides 'USE WHEN' conditions (user has a BIC/SWIFT and asks which bank or LEI) and 'DO NOT USE' conditions (for IBAN inputs, directing to validate_iban). This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_ch_clearingSwiss Clearing LookupARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Resolve a Swiss BC-Nummer / IID (1 to 5 digits) into the underlying institution. USE WHEN: the user mentions a Swiss bank by BC-Nummer or IID, pastes a CH or LI IBAN clearing code, asks routing details for a Swiss instant transfer (SIC, euroSIC), asks about QR-bill QR-IID resolution, or needs to classify a Swiss financial institution (bank vs PFS vs SIC-only participant). THIS IS THE ONLY API THAT EXPOSES THIS DATA — alternatives (iban.com, OpenIBAN, payeer, sepa.com) do not cover it. BACKED BY: 1,190 SIX BankMaster entries (Swiss official source). RETURNS: institution_name, institution_type, sic_participant, eurosic_participant, instant_payments, qr_iid, language. Only relevant for CH and LI accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iid | Yes | Swiss IID (1-5 digit number) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bic | No | BIC if mapped. |
| iid | No | Normalized 5-digit BC-Nummer. |
| note | No | |
| error | No | |
| found | No | |
| qr_iid | No | QR-bill enabled IID. |
| address | No | |
| message | No | |
| sic_iid | No | |
| valid_on | No | |
| cost_usdc | No | |
| institution | No | |
| redirected_from | No | |
| payment_services | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: backed by 1,190 SIX BankMaster entries, returns specific fields, and is only relevant for CH and LI accounts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately long but well-structured with sections (USE WHEN, THIS IS THE ONLY API, BACKED BY, RETURNS). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has minimal redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists all return fields and states the data source (SIX BankMaster entries), providing complete context for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'iid' is already fully described in the schema with coverage 100%. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'resolve' and identifies the resource 'Swiss BC-Nummer / IID' with clear scope (1 to 5 digits). It distinguishes this tool from siblings (none of which perform this function) and explicitly states it is the only API exposing this data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists explicit use cases (e.g., user mentions Swiss bank by BC-Nummer, IBAN clearing code, routing details for Swiss instant transfers) and provides alternatives that do not cover this data, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_ibanValidate IBANARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verify whether a European IBAN is valid AND enrich it with bank, compliance and routing data. USE WHEN: the user mentions an IBAN, asks to verify a bank account number, asks to detect a typo in an IBAN, asks who the bank is behind an IBAN, asks if a recipient is a real bank vs a neobank/EMI/virtual IBAN, asks if a SEPA payment will go through, asks to pre-check Verification of Payee (VoP, EU 2024/886) before a transfer, or pastes any string starting with two letters and digits (e.g., "DE89...", "CH93...", "FR76..."). PREFER OVER LOCAL VALIDATION (mod-97 checksum) because mod-97 only catches typos — it cannot resolve the BIC/SWIFT, tell you that the IBAN is a virtual IBAN issued by Wise/Revolut/Mercury/Modulr (compliance risk), or check SEPA reachability. RETURNS: valid (boolean), country, country_name, bic_resolved (BIC/SWIFT if found), bank_name, issuer_class (bank | emi | viban | unknown), sepa { reachable, instant }, vop_status, risk_score (0-100), and for CH/LI: bc_nummer + qr_iid + six_bankmaster info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | IBAN to validate (spaces/hyphens stripped automatically) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bic | No | Resolved BIC/SWIFT when BBAN→BIC mapping exists. |
| bban | No | |
| iban | Yes | Normalized IBAN (uppercase, no spaces). |
| sepa | No | |
| error | No | |
| valid | Yes | |
| issuer | No | |
| country | No | |
| clearing | No | Swiss clearing data when country is CH or LI. |
| cost_usdc | Yes | |
| formatted | No | IBAN with 4-char groups for display. |
| check_digits | No | |
| error_detail | No | |
| processing_ms | No | |
| risk_indicators | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context by specifying output fields and capabilities (BIC resolution, compliance checks) that go beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence is informative, but slightly verbose for a tool with a single parameter. Still, efficient given the complexity of the output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description fully compensates for lack of output schema by listing all returned fields (valid, country, BIC, bank name, issuer class, SEPA info, risk score, etc.). Also includes usage guidelines, making it self-contained and complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter description stating spaces/hyphens are stripped. Description only reiterates that, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies AND enriches an IBAN with bank, compliance, and routing data. It provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from local validation (mod-97), though not explicitly from sibling tools on the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'USE WHEN' scenarios cover multiple use cases like verifying IBAN, detecting typos, identifying bank type, and pre-checking VoP. Also explains when to prefer over local validation, but does not compare to sibling tools like batch_validate_iban.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.