parse_upi_narrationDecode bank-statement UPI narrations into payee, VPA, app or bank, UTR/RRN reference, and transaction direction; process up to 500 lines at once to simplify reconciliation.
Decode bank-statement UPI narrations (e.g. 'UPI/DR/412345678901/SWIGGY/YESB/swiggy@ybl/Payment') into payee, VPA, app/bank, UTR/RRN reference and direction. Accepts up to 500 lines at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| narrations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds real value beyond them by disclosing the batch ceiling (up to 500 lines at once) and the returned fields (payee, VPA, app/bank, UTR/RRN, direction) in the absence of an output schema. What it omits is failure behavior for malformed or non-UPI narrations.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler: the first defines the transformation and its outputs with an inline example, the second gives the capacity constraint. Both facts are front-loaded where an agent will read them.
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 one-parameter read-only parser with no output schema, the description covers input shape, output fields and batch limit, which is close to everything an agent needs to call it. The only meaningful gap is how unparseable lines are reported in the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0 percent and the single parameter is an untyped-in-prose array of strings, but the description compensates: the worked example shows the expected narration format and the 500-line statement maps directly to the maxItems constraint. Format per line is conveyed by example rather than by an explicit spec, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 (Decode) and resource (bank-statement UPI narrations), then enumerates exactly what fields are extracted (payee, VPA, app/bank, UTR/RRN reference, direction). The embedded example narration makes the input domain unmistakable and separates it from siblings like analyze_bank_statement or convert_bank_statement.
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?
The description implies the use case clearly (bank-statement narration strings) and hints at batching via the 500-line limit, but it never states when to use this instead of analyze_bank_statement or convert_bank_statement, nor what to do with non-UPI or mixed narration lines. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.