iso20022-mcp

parse_message

Converts ISO 20022 pacs.008 credit transfer or pacs.002 status report XML into structured JSON for AI agents to inspect and validate payment message fields.

Instructions

Parse an ISO 20022 pacs.008 (credit transfer) or pacs.002 (status report) XML message into structured JSON.

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": {
      "xml": "<xml>"
    },
    "name": "parse_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`xml`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral scoping by naming the two supported message types, implying other ISO 20022 types are out of scope. However it says nothing about what happens on malformed XML, unsupported message types, or whether the operation is read-only and side-effect free.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and outcome, with the accepted formats inlined parenthetically. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the input constraint is covered. What's missing is failure behavior for unsupported or invalid message types, which matters for a parser with exactly one free-form input.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'xml' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: the parameter is constrained to ISO 20022 pacs.008 or pacs.002 XML rather than arbitrary XML, which is the key semantic an agent needs before calling.

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 (parse) and resource (ISO 20022 XML message) and names the exact message types handled, pacs.008 credit transfer and pacs.002 status report, with plain-language glosses. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as validate_message or explain_message, but the 'into structured JSON' outcome makes the intent legible.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it holds a pacs.008 or pacs.002 XML payload and wants JSON. There is no statement of when to prefer validate_message, explain_message, or lookup_code instead, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server