Skip to main content
Glama
sebastienrousseau

bankstatementparser-mcp

Validate statement (dry run)

validate_statement
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a raw bank statement inline to confirm it is well-formed and parseable. Returns pass/fail status and transaction count without exposing the actual data.

Instructions

Dry-run parse an inline statement to check it parses cleanly.

Use this to confirm a payload is well-formed and parseable before
committing to a full read; it returns a structured pass/fail with the
transaction count but never the rows themselves, and never raises on a
parse error. To actually read the transactions use ``parse_statement``.

Args:
    content: The raw statement text.
    filename: Original filename; its extension selects the format.
    format: Explicit format override.

Returns:
    A dict with ``is_valid``, the resolved ``format``, the
    ``transaction_count`` on success, and an ``error`` on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoExplicit format identifier that overrides detection from the filename. Must be exactly one of: 'camt', 'csv', 'mt940', 'ofx', 'pain001', 'qfx' (see list_supported_formats). When omitted, the format is inferred from the filename extension.
contentYesThe raw statement text to validate, inline (not a file path). Accepts ISO 20022 CAMT.053 and pain.001 XML, SWIFT MT940, CSV exports, and OFX/QFX payloads.
filenameNoOriginal filename of the payload; its extension (.xml, .csv, .ofx, .qfx, .mt940, .sta) selects the format when 'format' is omitted. Defaults to 'statement.xml'.statement.xml

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'never raises on a parse error' and returns a structured pass/fail with transaction count. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise with a clear structure: description, usage guidance, Args, Returns. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description explains return values (is_valid, format, transaction_count, error). All necessary context for a dry-run validation tool is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description's Args section adds context: 'content' is inline, 'filename' extension selects format, 'format' overrides detection. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Dry-run parse an inline statement to check it parses cleanly.' It uses a specific verb ('validate'/'dry-run') and resource ('statement'), and distinguishes from siblings like parse_statement ('to actually read the transactions') and detect_format.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to confirm a payload is well-formed and parseable before committing to a full read.' Also contrasts with the alternative parse_statement: 'To actually read the transactions use parse_statement.'

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sebastienrousseau/bankstatementparser-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server