ibanforge

Check Swiss QR-bill Payload

check_swiss_qr_bill

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a Swiss QR-bill payload, the text a QR-bill's code carries (starts with SPC), rule by rule, each finding citing the SIX document it comes from. USE WHEN: an agent, an ERP or an accounting tool holds a scanned or generated QR-bill and must know before paying or issuing it whether it is well-formed, whether the reference type matches the IBAN (QRR needs a QR-IBAN, IID 30000-31999), and above all whether the creditor and debtor addresses are STRUCTURED (type S) or still COMBINED (type K): type K has not been permitted since 21.11.2025, and the banks guarantee payment of a type K QR-bill only until the end of September 2026. DO NOT USE to learn which bank holds the account or its payment-rail participation: that is the paid validate_iban. RETURNS: { valid, ready_for_2026_11_14, creditor_iban { value, valid, country, qr_iban, iid }, creditor { present, address, structured, sps_check, proposed_structured }, ultimate_debtor, amount, currency, reference { type, value, valid, note }, findings [{ code, severity, field, detail, source }], next_steps, source }. A combined address comes back with proposed_structured, the S-type fields derived from the combined lines, to relay as a fix. IMPORTANT: relay each finding's source string. 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
`payload`	Yes	The Swiss QR Code text with real line breaks: SPC, 0200, 1, IBAN, creditor (7 lines), ultimate creditor (7 empty lines), amount, currency, ultimate debtor (7 lines), reference type, reference, message, EPD, optional billing information and alternative schemes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`valid`	Yes	True when no finding has severity error.
`amount`	Yes
`coding`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`qr_type`	Yes
`trailer`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`creditor`	Yes
`currency`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`reference`	Yes
`next_steps`	Yes
`creditor_iban`	Yes
`ultimate_debtor`	Yes
`alternative_schemes`	Yes
`billing_information`	Yes
`ready_for_2026_11_14`	Yes	valid AND every present address is structured (type S). The name is kept for compatibility and is not a deadline: type K has not been permitted since 21.11.2025, and the banks guarantee payment of a type K QR-bill only until the end of September 2026.
`unstructured_message`	Yes
`ultimate_creditor_empty`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / ready_for_2026_11_14 / description

Previous value: -"valid AND every present address is structured (type S): what banks require from 14.11.2026."New value: +"valid AND every present address is structured (type S). The name is kept for compatibility and is not a deadline: type K has not been permitted since 21.11.2025, and the banks guarantee payment of a type K QR-bill only until the end of September 2026."

AddedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: per-finding source attribution from the SIX document, the specific checks performed (QRR vs QR-IBAN/IID 30000-31999, structured vs combined addresses), the temporal guarantees, and a full auth/cost model ($0, 25 units/week unkeyed, ifk_ key generation and claim endpoints, Bearer/X-API-Key placement). That is unusually rich operational context for a mutation-free read tool.

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?

Front-loaded and clearly sectioned (purpose, USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, RETURNS, IMPORTANT, COST), which makes it scannable despite its length. The COST block is disproportionately long and partly repeats the transport/key rules, which is the only place sentences fail to fully earn their place.

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?

Given a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description still enumerates the return shape field by field, explains the non-obvious proposed_structured field and how to relay it, and instructs the agent to propagate each finding's source string. Nothing needed to call it correctly or act on its result is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already spelling out the 7-line creditor/debtor layout and line ordering. The description adds only the 'starts with SPC' hint, which is already present in the schema description, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (check a Swiss QR-bill payload) and immediately disambiguates the jargon by defining the payload as 'the text a QR-bill's code carries (starts with SPC)'. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (validate_iban) and its own scope boundary, so an agent can route correctly 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Contains an explicit USE WHEN clause tied to a concrete situation (a scanned or generated QR-bill held by an agent, ERP, or accounting tool, before paying or issuing) and an explicit DO NOT USE clause naming the alternative tool (validate_iban) for the bank/payment-rail question. It even quantifies why the check matters (type K banned since 21.11.2025, guarantee until end of September 2026), which sharpens the selection decision.

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.