Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

VeriApiPro

by pro.veriapi.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate an IBAN and identify the Turkish bank

iban_dogrula
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks an IBAN's length, country format and MOD-97 check digits; for Turkish (TR) IBANs also returns the bank code and bank name. Algorithmic only: it does not confirm that the account exists or who owns it.

Endpoint: GET /v1/iban/dogrula. Available on all plans, including free. Costs 1 request unit per call. Read-only; JSON in Turkish with source and guncelleme (updated at) fields.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "iban": "<iban>"
    },
    "name": "iban_dogrula"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanYesIBAN with or without spaces, e.g. 'TR33 0006 1005 1978 6457 8413 26'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world, yet the description still adds material facts: cost of 1 request unit per call, availability on all plans including free, the GET endpoint, and that the payload is JSON in Turkish with source and guncelleme fields. It also discloses the fundamental limitation (no account existence or ownership check), which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before relying on the result.

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?

The core behavior and the algorithmic-only caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the operational metadata is pushed to a second block. The endpoint string and plan/read-only restatement are slightly boilerplate, but nothing is genuinely misleading or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially: it names the bank code and bank name for TR IBANs and mentions source/guncelleme fields, but does not say what a non-Turkish or invalid IBAN response looks like. For a single-parameter validation tool this is nearly complete, with one visible gap.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage), including the spaces-optional example. The description adds nothing about the iban field's accepted formats or normalization that the schema does not already say, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Checks an IBAN's length, country format and MOD-97 check digits') and adds a resource-specific extra ('for Turkish (TR) IBANs also returns the bank code and bank name'). This clearly separates it from the only nearby sibling, dogrula_vergi_no, which validates tax numbers rather than IBANs.

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 sentence 'Algorithmic only: it does not confirm that the account exists or who owns it' is an explicit when-not, telling the agent the tool is unsuitable for account-ownership verification. It does not name a sibling alternative or state prerequisites for the input beyond the schema example, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All VeriApiPro 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