Skip to main content
Glama

transfer_create

Initiate a SEPA transfer with beneficiary by ID or inline details. Handles SCA approval through polling or pending response for further processing.

Instructions

Create a SEPA transfer. Provide either beneficiary_id (existing beneficiary) or beneficiary (inline beneficiary object with name and iban), but not both. 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.
amountYesAmount to transfer
referenceYesTransfer reference
beneficiaryNoInline beneficiary object (mutually exclusive with beneficiary_id)
attachment_idsNoAttachment IDs (max 5, required for transfers > 30k EUR)
beneficiary_idNoExisting beneficiary UUID (mutually exclusive with beneficiary)
scheduled_dateNoScheduled date (YYYY-MM-DD)
bank_account_idYesBank account UUID to debit
vop_proof_tokenNoVoP proof token from verify-payee (auto-resolved when omitted)
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.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses SCA requirements, polling behavior (default wait=30s), fallback to pending response, and continuation via sca_session_show/sca_session_token. Could add error handling details.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence covers purpose and key constraint, second covers SCA flow. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers main behavioral aspects and parameter nuances for a create tool with 11 parameters. Mentions pending response but lacks details on full success/error responses. Good for a tool with no output schema.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining mutual exclusivity, wait parameter semantics, and sca_session_token usage. Goes beyond schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a SEPA transfer', specifying the verb and resource. It also clarifies mutual exclusivity of beneficiary parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'intl_transfer_create' for international transfers.

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?

Provides clear guidance on providing either beneficiary_id or beneficiary, and describes SCA handling with default polling and fallback. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternative transfer tools like intl_transfer_create.

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