Damn Vulnerable MCP Server (DVMCP)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fin.wire_transfer

Initiate a bank wire transfer to an external account by providing the destination account number, routing number, and transfer amount.

Instructions

Initiate a bank wire transfer to an external account. Requires account number, routing number, and amount.

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": {
      "to_account": "<to_account>",
      "routing": "<routing>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "fin.wire_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to_account`	Yes	Destination account number
`routing`	Yes	Destination routing number
`amount`	Yes	Transfer amount in USD
`memo`	No	Transfer memo/description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the purpose and parameter requirements, and fails to mention significant characteristics like reversibility, authorization levels, or confirmation steps, which are crucial for a wire transfer.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and requirements. It is well-structured and front-loaded with no unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after initiation, any potential side effects, failure modes, or required authorizations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond echoing the required parameters, providing no extra value.

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 action ('Initiate a bank wire transfer'), the target resource ('external account'), and required inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fin.process_payment by specifying the wire transfer mechanism and external account scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fin.process_payment or internal transfers. It lacks any context about prerequisites, appropriateness, or exclusions.

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