Pactus

validate_pain001

Validate a pain.001 XML message against its XSD schema, returning a structured report of all violations found across the entire message for efficient debugging.

Instructions

Validate a pain.001.001.09 message against its XSD.

Returns a structured ValidationReport listing every XSD violation found, with line/column/path information. Unlike parse_pain001, this does not stop at the first error — all violations are reported so the user can fix them in one pass.

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": "validate_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full weight. It discloses that it returns all violations, does not stop at first error, and includes line/column/path info. Lacks details on side effects or auth needs, but otherwise transparent.

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 succinct sentences. First sentence delivers core purpose; second adds behavioral detail and sibling differentiation. Zero wasted words.

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 single parameter, existing output schema, and sibling context, the description sufficiently covers behavior and differentiation. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network access), but overall complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (xml parameter already described in schema), the description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('pain.001.001.09 message against its XSD'). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling parse_pain001, making the purpose unmistakably clear.

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?

Explicit comparison to parse_pain001 tells the agent when to use this tool (for comprehensive validation) vs. its sibling (which stops at first error). No explicit when-not scenarios, but the guidance is strong.

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

Deploy Server