Skip to main content
Glama

ibanchecker-mcp

by io.github.koraykoylu

Get Country IBAN Format

get_iban_format
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the IBAN format specification for a country, covering 90 supported IBAN-using countries.

Returns JSON describing the country's total IBAN length, the BBAN layout (bank code, branch code, and account number positions and lengths), an example IBAN, and the SEPA-membership flag. Use this to understand or display how a country's IBAN is structured, to build input masks, or to explain a validation failure, not to validate a specific number (use validate_iban for that). An unsupported or unknown country code returns an error result describing the problem.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
country_codeYesTwo-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, case-insensitive (e.g. 'DE' for Germany, 'GB' for the United Kingdom, 'FR' for France).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool covers 90 countries, returns JSON, and returns error for unsupported codes, which is useful but not extensive.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool is a simple lookup with 1 parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format, country coverage, and error handling. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and describes the parameter well. The description adds that the country code is case-insensitive, which is not explicitly in the schema pattern. No nested objects or enums, so additional meaning is limited.

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 states 'Return the IBAN format specification for a country' with specific output fields (length, BBAN layout, example, SEPA flag) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling validate_iban.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (understand structure, build masks, explain failure) and when not to (to validate a specific number), and names the alternative tool validate_iban.

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

All ibanchecker-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: extracting IBANs from text, retrieving format specs, looking up BICs, and validating single or multiple IBANs. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can clearly distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., extract_ibans_from_text, validate_iban). The naming is predictable and aligns with common conventions, making it easy for an agent to interpret their purposes.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool addresses a necessary function for IBAN checking without being too few or too many, providing a focused and manageable set.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the full lifecycle of IBAN handling: extraction from text, validation of single and bulk IBANs, format lookup, and BIC enrichment. There are no obvious gaps, as the validation results already include bank details when available.

Resources