Skip to main content
Glama

recurring_transfer_create

Create a recurring transfer with defined amount, frequency, and beneficiary. Handles Strong Customer Authentication automatically or via a session token for retries.

Instructions

Create a recurring transfer. vop_proof_token is auto-resolved via verify_payee when omitted (and sca_session_token is not provided). SCA: this operation may require Strong Customer Authentication; the tool polls inline by default (wait=30s) and falls back to a structured pending response so the caller can continue via sca_session_show + sca_session_token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional note
waitNoMaximum seconds (0-120) to poll inline for SCA approval before returning a structured pending response. Use false or 0 for a pure two-step flow (return immediately on SCA required). Default 30.
amountYesTransfer amount (number or decimal string; serialized as a string per the Qonto API)
currencyYesCurrency code (e.g. EUR)
frequencyYesTransfer frequency
referenceYesTransfer reference
beneficiary_idYesBeneficiary UUID
bank_account_idYesBank account UUID to debit
vop_proof_tokenNoVoP proof token from verify_payee covering the beneficiary (auto-resolved when omitted, except on SCA retry per PSD2 dynamic linking)
sca_session_tokenNoSCA session token from a prior call to bind a previously approved SCA challenge to this retry. When set, no polling occurs and the operation runs exactly once with the token attached.
first_execution_dateYesFirst execution date (YYYY-MM-DD)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers critical behaviors: vop_proof_token auto-resolution, inline polling for SCA, fallback to pending response, and continuation via sca_session_show. However, it omits other aspects like idempotency or error handling.

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 description is three sentences with purpose first, then token details, then SCA handling. It is efficient and front-loaded, though could be slightly more terse.

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?

The description explains SCA flows and pending responses, but lacks detail on success response format or state transitions. Given no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining interactions: vop_proof_token auto-resolution when omitted, sca_session_token for retry, and default wait behavior. This clarifies parameter usage beyond schema definitions.

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 'Create a recurring transfer,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_transfer_create, internal_transfer_create, and intl_transfer_create by focusing on recurring transfers.

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?

The description provides context on SCA handling and token auto-resolution, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over other transfer creation tools. No comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexey-pelykh/qontoctl'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server