ISO 20022 Navigator

ISO 20022 legacy and scheme mappings

iso20022_legacy_and_scheme_mappings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use for ANY question about what replaces or corresponds to a legacy payment message (SWIFT MT such as MT103, MT202, MT940; NACHA; CHAPS), or which payment schemes use an ISO 20022 message (pacs.008, pain.001, pain.008, camt.053; SEPA, NPP, CHAPS, Lynx, CIPS and others). Call it even when the answer seems well known: it returns sourced, current mappings with status and caveats.

For "which schemes use X", call once with only the message: the response lists every recorded scheme (without descriptions, to keep it compact). Omit standard unless the user names one scheme; with standard, the response includes that scheme's description.

Legacy input (MT103, 940, ACH Statement): returns its ISO 20022 equivalent(s) in legacy_equivalents.
ISO 20022 input (pacs.008): returns legacy_equivalents (legacy messages that map to it) and used_by_schemes (schemes that use it).

Mappings are message-level only; this tool does not map individual fields and has no information about a message's structure, elements or rules. Do not cite it for those. ISO 20022 messages that have been retired are returned flagged with iso20022_deactivated_in, not hidden.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	A legacy message (e.g. 'MT103', 'MT 202COV', '940', 'ACH Statement') or an ISO 20022 message (e.g. 'pacs.008', 'camt.053.001.08').
`standard`	No	Omit (or leave empty) unless the user names one specific standard or scheme. Omitted returns every recorded scheme and legacy equivalent in one call; do not use this to check schemes one by one. Examples when the user names one: 'SWIFT_MT', 'SEPA', 'NPP', 'CHAPS'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`found`	Yes
`input`	Yes	The message identifier as interpreted by the server
`notes`	No	Caveats to pass on to the user
`input_kind`	Yes
`provenance`	No
`used_by_schemes`	No	Payment schemes that use this ISO 20022 message
`legacy_equivalents`	No	Legacy or non-ISO messages (SWIFT MT, NACHA, CHAPS legacy) and their ISO 20022 equivalent
`iso20022_message_name`	No	Name of the ISO 20022 message, when the input is one
`iso20022_deactivated_in`	No	Navigator data load (quarter) in which the input message was marked deactivated; absent if current

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

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 adds substantive context beyond them: responses are sourced and current with status and caveats, retired messages are flagged via iso20022_deactivated_in rather than hidden, and compactness is traded off when `standard` is supplied.

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 with the primary use case, then call strategy, then input/output semantics, then scope exclusions. Reasonably tight, though the bulleted input-type section partly restates the schema's own examples.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the key response fields and the retired-message flag. Safety, scope limits, and call strategy are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting `standard` returns every recorded scheme at once and should not be used to check schemes one by one, while supplying it includes that scheme's description. It also contrasts legacy vs ISO 20022 inputs to explain which response keys appear.

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 resource (ISO 20022 vs legacy payment message mappings) and the exact question types it serves, naming concrete examples (MT103, pacs.008, SEPA). There are no siblings, but the scope is still unambiguous.

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 says 'Use for ANY question' covering both directions, tells the agent to call it even when the answer seems known, and specifies call strategy (once with only the message for 'which schemes use X', omit `standard` unless a scheme is named). It also states when NOT to use it: field-level structure, elements, or rules.

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

All ISO 20022 Navigator 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.