suggest_ibanSuggest corrected IBANs for a possibly-mistyped IBAN. Returns a list of candidate IBANs with validity and bank name/BIC. Coverage is limited; if no suggestions are available this returns an error field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | A possibly-mistyped IBAN, e.g. "DE8937040044053201300". Spaces are allowed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "iban": "DE8937040044053201300"
+ },
+ {
+ "iban": "CH93 0076 2011 6238 5295 7"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses return format ('list of candidate IBANs with validity and bank name/BIC') and failure behavior ('if no suggestions are available this returns an error field'). This adds useful context beyond the annotations, though details about the error field are vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return behavior and a caveat. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output, and error behavior adequately. The phrase 'Coverage is limited' is somewhat vague, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's limitations, but overall the description is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'iban' parameter with examples and the note about spaces. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Suggest corrected IBANs for a possibly-mistyped IBAN.' This distinguishes it from the sibling validate_iban, which likely only checks validity. The scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 ('possibly-mistyped IBAN'), but does not explicitly name alternatives like validate_iban or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied strongly enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.