account_identifiers_getRetrieve a Starling Bank account's bank identifiers, including sort code, account number, BIC, and IBAN, by providing the account UID.
Get an account's bank identifiers (sort code, account number, BIC, IBAN, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountUid | Yes | The account UID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bic | No | ||
| iban | No | ||
| bankIdentifier | No | ||
| accountIdentifier | No | ||
| accountIdentifiers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little value by enumerating the identifier types returned, but says nothing about auth requirements or the shape of the response beyond that enumeration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical examples earn their place by clarifying what 'identifiers' means.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers enough; return values need not be explained. Only a brief note on error/empty behavior would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents accountUid; the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (an account's bank identifiers) with concrete examples (sort code, account number, BIC, IBAN). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like account_balance_get or account_holder_get, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus account_balance_get, account_holder_get, or accounts_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.