Skip to main content
Glama
sparebank1-mcp

sparebank1-mcp

by MrLightful

Resolve account keys

sb1_get_account_keys
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve one or more 11-digit account numbers into their bank account keys for use in banking operations.

Instructions

Resolve one or more 11-digit account numbers into their bank account keys.

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": {
      "accountNumbers": "<accountNumbers>"
    },
    "name": "sb1_get_account_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNumbersYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context such as how unknown account numbers are handled, whether partial results are returned, or rate/limit behavior beyond what the schema's maxItems already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification rather than maximal efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the operation is low-complexity with one parameter. However, for a resolver tool, the description should clarify what a 'bank account key' represents and what happens with invalid or unknown account numbers, which it omits.

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 0%, but the schema itself carries the key semantics via the ^\d{11}$ pattern and min/max items. The description reinforces the '11-digit' requirement, which is useful but largely duplicates the schema pattern; it does not explain batch semantics or error behavior for invalid inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (account numbers into bank account keys), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_account_balance or list_transactions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_account or get_account_details, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_account, get_account_details, or other account-related siblings. The only usage signal is the implied 'resolve keys' action, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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