Validate up to 500 IFSC codes in a single request to confirm their format and existence, enabling quick verification of bank branch details for financial workflows.
Validate multiple IFSC codes in parallel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ifscs | Yes | List of IFSC codes to validate (max 500) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / ifscs / titleAdded value: +"Ifscs"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"bulk_validate_ifscArguments"Output schema / titleAdded value: +"bulk_validate_ifscDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'parallel' execution trait, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not discuss partial failures, rate limits, or response-level behavior; the output schema mitigates some of that need.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place by conveying action, resource, cardinality, and execution mode.
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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description plus input schema covers everything essential. The 'parallel' detail adds useful execution context without requiring further explanation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and states that ifscs is a list of IFSC codes with a max of 500. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('validate'), a resource ('IFSC codes'), and a scope ('multiple') that distinguishes it from the single-code sibling lookup_ifsc. The word 'parallel' also signals bulk behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when multiple IFSC codes need validation in one call. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as lookup_ifsc for individual validation, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.