Skip to main content
Glama
sebastienrousseau

camt053-mcp

by sebastienrousseau
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Check CBPR+ Nov 2026 readiness

check_cbpr_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit camt.053 statements for CBPR+ November 2026 acceptance rules, checking schema version and postal address structure to identify issues that will cause rejection.

Instructions

Check a camt.053 statement against the CBPR+ Nov 2026 acceptance rules.

Use this to audit a statement for the business-rule changes (schema
version, structured postal addresses) enforced from the Nov 2026 cutover.
For plain XSD schema validity use ``validate_statement`` instead; for just
the cutover date use ``get_cbpr_cutover_date``.

A coordinated CBPR+ / Fedwire / CHAPS / T2 cutover lands on
**14-16 November 2026**: unstructured-only postal addresses get rejected,
``camt.110/111`` exceptions and investigations become mandatory, and T2S
R2026.NOV upgrades camt.053 / 054 to schema revision MR2026.

This tool walks the supplied payload and reports every issue that will
fail the Nov 2026 acceptance rules:

* **Schema version** vs the CBPR+ current set (``camt.053.001.08`` /
  ``camt.053.001.13``); ``.02``-``.07`` are flagged as deprecated
  warnings; unknown / non-camt.053 namespaces as errors.
* **Postal addresses**: every ``<PstlAdr>`` is classified as fully
  structured, hybrid, or **unstructured-only** (``<AdrLine>`` without
  ``<TwnNm>`` + ``<Ctry>`` siblings, the Nov 2026 reject case).

Returns a dictionary ``{"cbpr_ready": bool, "schema_version": str | None,
"checked_at": ISO-8601 UTC, "cutover_date": "2026-11-16",
"issues": [...], "summary": {...}}``. ``cbpr_ready`` is ``True`` iff no
``severity="error"`` issue was raised. An ``{"error": ...}`` envelope
is returned instead if the XML is malformed or refused by the
hardened pre-flight (DOCTYPE / ENTITY / oversized payload).

Args:
    xml: The raw camt.05x statement XML as a string.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmlYesThe raw camt.05x statement XML document as a string, audited against the CBPR+ Nov 2026 acceptance rules (schema version and structured postal addresses). Rejected by the hardened pre-flight if it carries a DOCTYPE/ENTITY or is oversized.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description details the tool's behavior: it walks the payload, reports issues, returns a structured dictionary with error envelopes for malformed input, and specifies the pre-flight checks (DOCTYPE/ENTITY/oversized). No contradictions with 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 detailed and well-structured with bullet points and bold text, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing critical information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (dictionary with keys like cbpr_ready, schema_version, issues, etc.) and covers error cases. The single parameter is well-documented, and all behavioral aspects are addressed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the pre-flight rejection criteria and the audit context (e.g., 'audited against the CBPR+ Nov 2026 acceptance rules'). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'raw XML document' description.

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 the tool checks a camt.053 statement against CBPR+ Nov 2026 acceptance rules. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('check a statement') and distinguishes itself from related tools like validate_statement and get_cbpr_cutover_date.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (audit for business-rule changes) and provides alternative tools for other cases (validate_statement for XSD validity, get_cbpr_cutover_date for cutover date alone). It gives clear, actionable guidance.

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/camt053-mcp'

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