ibanforge

Check ISO 20022 Postal Address

check_postal_address

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a structured ISO 20022 postal address against a payment rail's published address rules, rule by rule, each verdict citing the document it comes from. USE WHEN: assembling a payment instruction (pain.001, a Fedwire message, a T2 transfer) with a creditor or debtor address, to learn whether the rail accepts it BEFORE submitting. The November 2026 changes (SIC 20.11, Fedwire 16.11, T2 R2026.NOV) remove the fully unstructured address option — this check tells you whether an address survives them. DO NOT USE to verify that a street or town EXISTS: this checks conformity with the message format rules, not postal reality. SCHEMES: 'sps' (Swiss Payment Standards, SIX), 'hvps_plus' (HVPS+ / T2, ECB), 'fedwire' (Federal Reserve). There is deliberately NO 'cbpr+' scheme: that guideline sits behind swift.com, unreachable to automated readers, and a conformity boolean quoting an unread document would be a guess dressed as a verdict — the note field restates this on every answer. VERDICTS: pass, fail, and not_applicable — the last marks a rule whose precondition is not met and never counts as a pass. conforms is true when no finding failed. IMPORTANT: relay each finding's source string — it names the exact document, version and validity date the rule is quoted from. They are what makes the verdict auditable. FREE: the rules are published commodities. The paid surface is the postal_address block that /v1/bic and /v1/iban/validate return for the resolved institution. COST: $0 per call, on every surface (free with no key on this transport: 25 units a week per source address, one per call and one per IBAN in batch_validate_iban, reset on Monday 00:00 UTC. Or an ifk_ key with no e-mail at all: POST https://api.ibanforge.com/v1/keys/generate with no body for 25 calls/month, on the REST API or on this transport, and POST /v1/keys/claim lifts that same key to 200 a month. Send the key here as Authorization: Bearer ifk_… (or X-API-Key) and each call counts against it exactly as on the REST API).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scheme`	Yes	Which rail's rules to check against: sps \| hvps_plus \| fedwire
`address`	Yes	The ISO 20022 PostalAddress under test, in ISO tag vocabulary (snake_cased).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	Why 'cbpr+' is not on the menu. Served on every answer.
`scheme`	Yes	sps \| hvps_plus \| fedwire — the rule set that was applied.
`conforms`	Yes	True when no finding failed. not_applicable findings never count against it.
`findings`	Yes	One entry per rule of the scheme, in a stable order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the three-valued verdict model (pass/fail/not_applicable with not_applicable never counting as a pass), how conforms is computed, the deliberately absent cbpr+ scheme and why, the requirement to relay each finding's source string, and the full cost/auth model (25 units/week anonymous, ifk_ key tiers, header format).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose, when-to-use and when-not are front-loaded and tight, but the COST paragraph is a very long parenthetical with key-generation URLs, monthly quotas, reset timing and header alternatives that dominates the tail of the description. The information is useful, yet it is not structured for scanning and inflates the definition considerably.

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 an output schema already present, the description still explains the verdict vocabulary, the conforms flag, the source-string contract, the supported schemes and the explicit non-goal, plus access/cost constraints. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 exceeds it by expanding each enum value into its owner and rail ('sps' = Swiss Payment Standards/SIX, 'hvps_plus' = HVPS+/T2/ECB, 'fedwire' = Federal Reserve), which helps an agent pick the right scheme. It does not add field-level guidance for the nested address object (e.g. adr_tp handling), so it stops short of 5.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (check), resource (structured ISO 20022 postal address), and mechanism (against a rail's published address rules, rule by rule with cited sources). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like validate_iban, lookup_bic or check_compliance, and the 'SCHEMES' line pins the exact three rule sets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit USE WHEN (assembling pain.001, Fedwire, T2 payment instructions, before submission) and explicit DO NOT USE (verifying that a street or town exists), which rules out the most likely mis-invocation. The November 2026 context tells the agent when the check is most relevant.

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

All ibanforge tools Inspect

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.