Skip to main content
Glama

ibanchecker-mcp

by io.github.koraykoylu

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 the bank name, city, ISO country code, SEPA membership, and (when available) the official website and Wikidata entity. 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.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context: returns specific JSON fields, error handling (no fabrication), and that unknown codes return error.

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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive: starts with purpose, then format, return fields, usage, and error behavior. No redundant sentences.

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 simple 1-param tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: input format, output fields, error handling, and use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage with pattern and length constraints. The description adds meaning: case-insensitivity, head office vs branch distinction, and example formats, surpassing schema details.

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 clearly states it looks up a financial institution by BIC/SWIFT code, specifies the valid lengths, and lists the returned details. It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with 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?

Explicitly states when to use: resolving BIC, confirming SWIFT code validity, enriching IBAN. It also describes behavior for unknown/malformed input. No explicit when-not, but the context is clear.

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