starling-bank-mcp

Create new payee

payee_create

Create a new payee for Starling Bank payments by supplying payee name, type, account and bank identifiers, and country code. Use this to set up individuals or businesses before sending payments.

Instructions

Create a new payee (person/company you can send payments to)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payeeName`	Yes	Name of the payee
`payeeType`	Yes	Type of payee
`countryCode`	Yes	Country code (e.g., GB)
`phoneNumber`	No	Phone number of the payee
`bankIdentifier`	Yes	Sort code or bank identifier
`accountIdentifier`	Yes	Account number or identifier
`bankIdentifierType`	Yes	Type of bank identifier

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No
`success`	No
`payeeUid`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The only structured signal is readOnlyHint=false, confirming a write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether duplicate payees are rejected, whether bank details are validated, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation with six required fields, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by defining the domain term. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents inputs. However, for a create operation with six required fields and multiple siblings, the description omits prerequisites and duplicate-handling behavior, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters, including the two enums, are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (payee), and the parenthetical clarifies what a payee is, distinguishing it from the read-only siblings payees_list and payee_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or contrasting scope, so it lands just below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like payment_create or payees_list. The intended workflow (create a payee before sending a payment) is only implied.

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