Pactus

parse_pain001

Parse a pain.001 Customer Credit Transfer Initiation message to extract structured payment batch data for validation.

Instructions

Parse a pain.001.001.09 Customer Credit Transfer Initiation message.

pain.001 is the initiating message in a credit transfer flow, sent by a corporate or customer to their bank. It carries one or more payment batches (PaymentInformation), each grouping transactions that share a debtor account, execution date, and service level.

Returns a structured ParsedPain001 on success, or {"error": "..."} on failure.

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_pain001"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`xml`	Yes	The pain.001 XML message as a string.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool returns a structured object on success or an error on failure. It mentions the message's internal batches but does not detail edge cases, validation behavior, or side effects.

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 efficient, using three sentences to convey purpose, structure context, and return type. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the middle paragraph could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input and output. It explains the message's batch structure, which aids understanding, though error details are sparse.

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?

The sole parameter 'xml' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no further detail about format, size limits, or encoding, so it provides minimal value beyond the 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 it parses a specific pain.001.001.09 message, providing context about its role in credit transfers. It distinguishes from sibling parsing tools (e.g., parse_pacs008) by naming the message type and describing its structure.

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 explains the message's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage when a pain.001 XML is encountered, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server