A
license-
qualityD
maintenanceQuery 13,000+ US consumer lenders with eligibility criteria, rates, CFPB complaints, and ratings. Find matching lenders by borrower profile, get full profiles, compare lenders, and check eligibility.
MIT
Bancadia MCP
Server Details
Query Bancadia's registry of US business checking account products with structured filters.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Bancadia/bancadia-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Bancadia MCP
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct role: query_business_checking returns a filtered list of listings, while get_business_checking_listing returns full details for a specific listing identified by slug. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern (query_ and get_ followed by business_checking-related nouns). The verbs clearly distinguish list-level vs. detail-level operations, making the naming predictable and consistent.
Tool Count4/5
With only two tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for a focused registry lookup use case. It does not feel bloated, though there is room for a few more complementary tools (e.g., list banks, compare listings) without feeling excessive.
Completeness5/5
The pair provides a complete read-only workflow: search/filter to discover listings, then retrieve full details for a chosen listing. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose, as create/update/delete are not relevant to a public registry viewer.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_business_checking_listingAInspect
Get full detail on one specific business checking listing, including gotcha fees (business_deposit_fees, e.g. overdraft, NSF, dormancy) and feature narrative (business_deposit_account_features) not returned by query_business_checking's broad list results. Fees/features that apply to only one plan tier (e.g. a Standard/Plus/Premier ladder) are nested under that tier in plan_tiers[].fees / plan_tiers[].features; tier-agnostic ones are in the top-level general_fees / general_features. Use this as a follow-up after query_business_checking to dig deeper on one listing the caller already identified by its listing_slug.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_slug | Yes | The listing's stable public identifier, as returned in query_business_checking results (e.g. 'found-business-checking'). Do not use an internal database id. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that tier-specific fees/features are nested under plan_tiers whereas general ones are top-level, and that certain details are not returned by the sibling tool. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get' and the detail-oriented purpose.
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?
Two moderately dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each clause adds meaningful context—excluded fields, tier nesting, follow-up usage—though the long parenthetical around gotcha fees makes the opening sentence somewhat heavy.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (fees, features, tier nesting) and how it differs from the sibling tool. The agent has enough context to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect from the response.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the slug should come from query_business_checking results and must not be an internal database id, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description. No new parameter semantics are introduced.
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 names a specific verb ('Get full detail') and a specific resource ('one specific business checking listing'), and explicitly contrasts it with query_business_checking's broad list. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling.
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?
The description explicitly says to use this as a follow-up after query_business_checking and names the alternative tool. It also identifies the trigger: when the caller has already identified one listing by slug, implying when not to use it (for broad list results).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_business_checkingAInspect
Query the Bancadia registry for business checking account products using compound filter criteria. Returns active, verified listings from financial institutions. Optionally accepts target_industries/target_business_profiles to soft-rank results toward listings built for a given business type or stage — non-matching but eligible listings are still returned, just ranked lower.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apy_min | No | Minimum APY (inclusive), for interest-bearing accounts | |
| rtp_network | No | Which real-time payment rail is supported | |
| rtp_supported | No | Whether real-time payments (any rail) are supported at all | |
| insurance_type | No | Deposit insurance type | |
| monthly_fee_max | No | Maximum monthly fee | |
| available_states | No | Returns listings available in all specified states | |
| interest_bearing | No | Whether the account earns interest | |
| target_industries | No | Soft-ranks results toward listings built for these business types. Does not exclude non-matching but otherwise-eligible listings. | |
| entity_types_accepted | No | Returns listings accepting all specified entity types (e.g. llc, s_corp) | |
| free_transactions_min | No | Minimum free transactions per month | |
| cash_deposit_available | No | Whether cash deposits are supported | |
| sub_accounts_supported | No | Whether sub-accounts are supported | |
| target_business_profiles | No | Soft-ranks results toward listings built for this business stage/shape. Does not exclude non-matching but otherwise-eligible listings. | |
| tax_integration_available | No | Whether the account connects to any tax-prep or tax-filing software/service | |
| minimum_opening_deposit_max | No | Maximum minimum opening deposit | |
| expense_integration_available | No | Whether the account connects to any expense/spend-management software | |
| accounting_integration_available | No | Whether the account connects to any accounting software (e.g. QuickBooks, Xero) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that only active and verified listings are returned, and that the soft-ranking parameters do not exclude non-matching listings but only lower their rank. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence explains the notable soft-ranking behavior without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main query behavior, return scope (active/verified), and optional ranking behavior. With 17 parameters and full schema coverage, the description complements the schema well, though it does not mention pagination or default behavior when no filters are provided.
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?
The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including the soft-ranking semantics for target_industries and target_business_profiles. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the overall context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool queries a registry for business checking products using compound filter criteria, and specifies it returns active, verified listings. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_business_checking_listing, which likely retrieves a single listing rather than querying a set.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (querying with filters) and explicitly describes the optional soft-ranking behavior, including that non-matching listings are still returned. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides programmatic access to the FDIC BankFind Suite API, enabling users to query public data on FDIC-insured financial institutions, bank failures, and branch locations. It supports advanced filtering for financial reports, demographics, and institutional history without requiring an API key.2954MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceAccess ServiceGraph — a structured catalog of 100k+ US professional-services firms (law, marketing, consulting, accounting, IT services, architecture, engineering, HR, PR, design) with filters for industry, services offered, location, size, ratings, and third-party listing presence.68MIT
Vexi MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to search and retrieve structured business data from the Vexi API, allowing AI agents to get clean, typed business objects with identity, offerings, and trust signals.422MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.