Skip to main content
Glama

ibanchecker-mcp

by io.github.koraykoylu
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate IBAN

validate_iban
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a single International Bank Account Number (IBAN) against the official ISO 13616 structure for its country.

What it checks: the country code, total length for that country, the national BBAN structure, and the MOD-97 check digits. When the bank/branch code maps to a known institution, the response also includes the bank name, BIC/SWIFT code, and country.

Returns JSON with valid (boolean), iban, formatted, country, country_name, check_digits, bban, and, when the bank is recognized, bank_name, bic, bank_code, bank_city, sepa and national_check_valid. An invalid IBAN still returns a result, with valid: false, an error message and an error_code (e.g. INVALID_CHECKSUM, INVALID_LENGTH, UNKNOWN_COUNTRY); it does not throw.

Use this when you have one account number to verify. For many IBANs prefer validate_bulk_ibans; to pull IBANs out of prose use extract_ibans_from_text first. No account data is stored; validation runs in memory and is discarded. Requires an API key; a free key from ibanchecker.cash/api-docs covers 100 requests a month.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesA single IBAN to validate. Case-insensitive; spaces are tolerated and ignored (e.g. 'DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00' or 'GB29NWBK60161331926819').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / iban / description
      Previous value: -"The IBAN to validate"New value: +"A single IBAN to validate. Case-insensitive; spaces are tolerated and ignored (e.g. 'DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00' or 'GB29NWBK60161331926819')."
    • addedInput schema / properties / iban / minLength
      Added value: +5
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that invalid input still returns a structured result with error_code rather than throwing, enumerates what is checked, and states that no account data is stored (in-memory, discarded) plus the API-key and quota requirement. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs.

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?

It is segmented into purpose, what-it-checks, return shape, and when-to-use, all front-loaded with the core purpose first. Given there is no output schema, the return-list sentence earns its space rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description fully carries return-value documentation, including valid/error fields and sample error codes, and covers auth and rate-limit constraints. An agent has everything required to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents case-insensitivity and space tolerance for the single 'iban' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that validation is country-specific, which is context rather than new parameter meaning.

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 a precise verb (validate) and resource (a single IBAN) plus the standard it checks against (ISO 13616 country structure). The word 'single' immediately distinguishes it from the sibling validate_bulk_ibans.

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?

It gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use this when you have one account number to verify,' and names both alternatives by name with their triggering conditions (validate_bulk_ibans for many, extract_ibans_from_text for prose). Nothing 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