Skip to main content
Glama

Check ISO 20022 Postal Address

check_postal_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a structured ISO 20022 postal address against SPS, HVPS+, or Fedwire rules. Get rule-by-rule verdicts with source citations to confirm rail acceptance before submitting.

Instructions

Check a structured ISO 20022 postal address against a payment rail's published address rules, rule by rule, each verdict citing the document it comes from. USE WHEN: assembling a payment instruction (pain.001, a Fedwire message, a T2 transfer) with a creditor or debtor address, to learn whether the rail accepts it BEFORE submitting. The November 2026 changes (SIC 20.11, Fedwire 16.11, T2 R2026.NOV) remove the fully unstructured address option — this check tells you whether an address survives them. DO NOT USE to verify that a street or town EXISTS: this checks conformity with the message format rules, not postal reality. SCHEMES: 'sps' (Swiss Payment Standards, SIX), 'hvps_plus' (HVPS+ / T2, ECB), 'fedwire' (Federal Reserve). There is deliberately NO 'cbpr+' scheme: that guideline sits behind swift.com, unreachable to automated readers, and a conformity boolean quoting an unread document would be a guess dressed as a verdict — the note field restates this on every answer. VERDICTS per finding: pass, fail, not_applicable — the last marks a rule whose precondition is not met and never counts as a pass. conforms is true when no finding failed. IMPORTANT: relay each finding's source string — it names the exact document, version and validity date the rule is quoted from. That is what makes the verdict auditable. COST: free (routed to POST /v1/address/check). The paid surface is the postal_address block that lookup_bic and validate_iban return for the resolved institution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemeYesWhich rail's rules to check against.
addressYesThe ISO 20022 PostalAddress under test, in ISO tag vocabulary (snake_cased).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesWhy 'cbpr+' is not on the menu. Served on every answer.
schemeYes
conformsYesTrue when no finding failed. not_applicable findings never count against it.
findingsYesOne entry per rule of the scheme, in a stable order.
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: verdict semantics (pass/fail/not_applicable), the meaning of 'conforms', and the requirement to relay each finding's source string for auditability. It also discloses note behavior, cost, and routing, which are non-obvious traits not inferable from annotations.

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 long but tightly organized with scannable labels (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, SCHEMES, VERDICTS, IMPORTANT, COST), ensuring key guidance is front-loaded. Every section earns its place by addressing selection, behavior, or output interpretation, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers usage context, exclusions, scheme availability, verdict interpretation, output auditability, cost, and routing. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured, so the description does not need to restate them; nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already high. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining scheme meanings and providing domain guidance (e.g., SPS forbids sending adr_tp) that is not fully captured in the schema. It does not repeat field-level descriptions, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and specifies the exact resource (structured ISO 20022 postal address) and subject (payment rail's published address rules). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from its siblings by emphasizing rule-by-rule conformity checking with citable verdicts, rather than general validation or lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'USE WHEN' section explicitly names the triggering scenarios (assembling pain.001, Fedwire, or T2 instructions) and the 'DO NOT USE' section explicitly excludes postal-reality verification, preventing misuse. It also names the supported schemes and explains the deliberate absence of 'cbpr+', giving concrete selection criteria.

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

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/cammac-creator/ibanforge'

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