Skip to main content
Glama
rehan1020

mcp-india-stack

by rehan1020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

calculate_neft_rtgs_imps_charges

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate NEFT, RTGS, IMPS, or UPI transfer costs using amount, account type, and online banking details. Get a charge breakdown with base charge, GST, and total.

Instructions

Calculate NEFT/RTGS/IMPS/UPI transaction charges.

Use when estimating bank transfer costs or comparing payment modes.

Args: transfer_mode: "NEFT", "RTGS", "IMPS", or "UPI" amount: Transfer amount in INR account_type: "savings" or "current" is_online: True if done via online banking

Returns: Charge breakdown with base charge, GST, and total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesTransfer amount in INR
is_onlineNoTrue if done via online banking
account_typeNo'savings' or 'current'savings
transfer_modeYesNEFT, RTGS, IMPS, or UPI

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_type / title
      Added value: +"Account Type"
    • addedInput schema / properties / amount / title
      Added value: +"Amount"
    • addedInput schema / properties / is_online / title
      Added value: +"Is Online"
    • addedInput schema / properties / transfer_mode / title
      Added value: +"Transfer Mode"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"calculate_neft_rtgs_imps_chargesArguments"
    • addedOutput schema / title
      Added value: +"calculate_neft_rtgs_imps_chargesDictOutput"
  2. Addedv0.4.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape: 'Charge breakdown with base charge, GST, and total.' It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose and usage context, followed by a flat Args/Returns structure. It is a bit redundant with the schema, but every section earns its place and there is no filler.

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 the output schema is present and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile, the description is largely complete: it names the inputs, the intended use case, and the nature of the result. It could add caveats about charge-schedule assumptions, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The Args section largely mirrors the schema rather than adding new semantics such as amount ranges, exact transfer_mode formats, or handling of defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate NEFT/RTGS/IMPS/UPI transaction charges.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many validation and other calculate_* siblings without needing to inspect parameters.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use when estimating bank transfer costs or comparing payment modes', giving agents a clear trigger for selecting it. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name closer alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for the intended scenario.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools