camt053-mcp

Validate IBAN, BIC or LEI

validate_identifier

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a single financial identifier - IBAN, BIC, or LEI - and get a clear pass/fail result. Use for one-off checks.

Instructions

Validate a single financial identifier (IBAN, BIC, or LEI).

Use this for a one-off identifier check with a clear pass/fail. To validate
identifiers embedded across a whole batch of records, prefer
``validate_records`` rather than calling this per field.

Returns ``{"kind": str, "value": str, "valid": bool}``.

Args:
    kind: One of ``"iban"``, ``"bic"``, or ``"lei"`` (case-insensitive).
    value: The identifier value to check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "validate_identifier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes	The financial identifier type to validate (case-insensitive). Must be exactly one of: 'bic', 'iban', 'lei'.
`value`	Yes	The identifier value to check, matching the chosen kind (e.g. an IBAN, an 8- or 11-character BIC, or a 20-character LEI). Whitespace/case handling follows the underlying validator.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Previous value: -"The identifier type to validate: one of 'iban', 'bic', or 'lei' (case-insensitive)."New value: +"The financial identifier type to validate (case-insensitive). Must be exactly one of: 'bic', 'iban', 'lei'."

addedInput schema / properties / kind / enum

Added value: +[
+  "bic",
+  "iban",
+  "lei"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.0.12Jul 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Added value: +"The identifier type to validate: one of 'iban', 'bic', or 'lei' (case-insensitive)."

addedInput schema / properties / value / description

Added value: +"The identifier value to check, matching the chosen kind (e.g. an IBAN, an 8- or 11-character BIC, or a 20-character LEI). Whitespace/case handling follows the underlying validator."

First observedv0.0.11Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds return format (JSON with kind, value, valid) and emphasizes clear pass/fail outcome. 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?

The description is concise, well-structured with clear sections, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and argument details. Complete and sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions (e.g., case-insensitivity for kind, examples for value). The description's Args section adds minimal new information beyond 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 the tool validates a single financial identifier (IBAN, BIC, or LEI), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_records by specifying single vs batch.

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 says when to use (one-off check) and when not to (batch), and provides the alternative validate_records. This meets the criteria perfectly.

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