Skip to main content
Glama

Openiban

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate Iban

validate_iban
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an IBAN: check its checksum and (where supported) its bank code, and resolve the bank name, BIC, and city. Returns whether the IBAN is structurally valid plus bank details when available. Best coverage for EU/DACH banks (DE, NL, BE, CH, AT, LU); for other countries the checksum is still validated but bank details may be empty. IBANs with spaces are accepted (e.g. "DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesThe IBAN to validate, e.g. "DE89370400440532013000". Spaces are allowed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "iban": "DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00"
+  },
+  {
+    "iban": "NL91ABNA0417164300"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: accepts spaces, returns bank details when available, but bank details may be empty for non-EU/DACH countries. This openly discloses output variability beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by coverage limitations and input format notes. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (structural validity plus bank details), input format nuances, and geographic coverage limitations. Rich annotations cover the safety profile, making this description complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'iban' parameter including the allowance of spaces and examples. The description reiterates the space handling but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's 100% coverage. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('IBAN'), and clearly states what the tool does: checks checksum, resolves bank details, and returns structural validity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_claim and suggest_iban by focusing on IBAN validation.

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 on when the tool is most effective ('Best coverage for EU/DACH banks') and clarifies what happens for other countries, implying when it should be used. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the geographic scope guidance effectively tells the agent when to rely on the tool's full functionality versus when results may be limited.

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

All Openiban 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