Skip to main content
Glama

ibanchecker-mcp

by io.github.koraykoylu
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look Up Bank by BIC/SWIFT

lookup_bic
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a financial institution by its BIC (Business Identifier Code, also called SWIFT code) and return the matching bank's details.

Accepts an 8-character (head office) or 11-character (branch) BIC. Returns JSON with bic, bic8, bank_name, city, country_code, country_name, sepa, the institution type and its status. Use this to resolve a BIC to a human-readable bank, to confirm a SWIFT code is real, or to enrich a validated IBAN with institution details. An unknown or malformed BIC returns an error result rather than a guess; codes are never fabricated. Requires an API key on the Basic plan or above, or a free key whose address has a verified ibanchecker.cash account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bicYesAn 8- or 11-character ISO 9362 BIC/SWIFT code, case-insensitive (e.g. 'DEUTDEFF' or 'DEUTDEFF500').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / bic / description
      Previous value: -"The BIC/SWIFT code to look up (e.g. DEUTDEDB)"New value: +"An 8- or 11-character ISO 9362 BIC/SWIFT code, case-insensitive (e.g. 'DEUTDEFF' or 'DEUTDEFF500')."
    • addedInput schema / properties / bic / maxLength
      Added value: +11
    • addedInput schema / properties / bic / minLength
      Added value: +8
    • addedInput schema / properties / bic / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9]{8}([A-Za-z0-9]{3})?$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive) by disclosing the auth requirement (Basic plan or above, or verified free key), the error behavior for unknown/malformed codes, and a no-fabrication guarantee. It also enumerates the returned JSON fields even without an 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the purpose and length semantics, then use cases, then error/auth caveats. It is somewhat long with the full field enumeration, but each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter lookup with no output schema: the description covers input format, use cases, return fields, error semantics, and auth prerequisites, leaving no material gap an agent would need before calling it.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that 8 characters denote a head office and 11 a branch, which the schema's pattern/length constraints do not convey. That interpretive value earns an above-baseline score.

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 ('Look up a financial institution by its BIC') and immediately resolves the BIC/SWIFT alias ambiguity. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling IBAN-oriented tools (validate_iban, extract_ibans_from_text, get_iban_format) since it operates on BIC codes, not IBANs.

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?

Names three concrete scenarios for use: resolving a BIC to a bank, confirming a SWIFT code is real, and enriching a validated IBAN. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so alternative-routing is left to inference.

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
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.

Resources