Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@iso20022-mcp search for reconciliation messages"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
One Model Context Protocol server, one small set of meta-tools —
search, list_families, describe, validate, generate, parse — that
route across every ISO 20022 message family (pain · pacs · camt ·
acmt). Install one thing, discover the whole suite: an agent sees a handful
of verbs instead of the 60+ tools spread across five individual servers.
Latest release: v0.0.4 — 7 routing meta-tools over stdio, light core (only
mcp), backing family servers as optional extras, actionable structured errors on everyvalidate/generatefailure, for Python 3.10+. The front door to the ISO 20022 MCP Suite.
The suite has a dedicated, best-in-class server per message family. That depth
is the point — but an agent shouldn't have to know which of five servers and
which of sixty tools it needs before it can act. iso20022-mcp is the thin
routing layer on top: ask it in plain terms ("I need to reconcile a
statement", "generate a credit transfer"), and it points you at — or executes
against — the right family. Small tool surface, whole-suite reach.
Related MCP server: camt053-mcp
iso20022-mcp is the generic message toolkit of eight coordinated,
vendor-neutral MCP servers that together cover the ISO 20022 bank-statement
workflow and the November 2026 structured-address cutover, plus a high-level orchestration layer — readiness scoring, clearing-profile linting, and audit evidence — statement depth,
whole-catalogue routing, reconciliation, multi-format ingestion, and address
remediation. Dependency ranges are kept aligned across the suite,
so the servers co-install cleanly in a single Python environment: start with
one, add the rest as your workflow grows.
Server | Scope | Surface | Install | Use it when |
ISO 20022 | 22 MCP tools · 4 prompts · 3 resources |
| You work with bank-to-customer statements end to end — the suite's flagship | |
Unified gateway: | 7 meta-tools |
| You want one entry point to every message family — this package | |
Matches expected | 7 MCP tools |
| You need explainable statement/payment reconciliation | |
Multi-format statement ingestion: ISO 20022 CAMT.053 and pain.001, SWIFT MT940, OFX/QFX, CSV | 5 MCP tools · 1 prompt · 1 resource |
| Your statements arrive in mixed or legacy formats | |
ISO 20022 postal-address classification, assessment & remediation for the November 2026 structured-address cutover ( | 9 MCP tools |
| You need debtor/creditor addresses cliff-ready ahead of 14 Nov 2026 | |
Orchestration gateway: detect → structurally validate → clearing-profile lint → readiness score, plus automated remediation and | 4 MCP tools |
| You want one high-level readiness / orchestration entry point over the suite | |
Manages, validates and serves bank-specific clearing profiles / rule packs (CBPR+, SEPA_Instant, FedNow, Generic); premium rule-pack entitlement gating | 4 MCP tools |
| You lint payments against your own institution's market practice | |
Compiles readiness findings, remediation diffs and simulated responses into a sealed, Ed25519-signable audit evidence pack | 6 MCP tools |
| You need tamper-evident audit / certification artifacts |
In one line each: camt053-mcp is the bank-statement flagship (deepest
camt.05x surface, stdio + authenticated streamable HTTP);
iso20022-mcp is the generic message toolkit (a handful of verbs over
the whole catalogue); reconcile-mcp is the reconciliation workflow
(did the money we expected actually arrive?);
bankstatementparser-mcp is the ingestion layer (many formats in, one
transaction shape out); and structured-address-fix-mcp is the
postal-address specialist (debtor/creditor addresses cliff-ready for the
Nov 2026 cutover).
The gateway also routes to the per-family servers —
pain001-mcp, pacs008-mcp,
acmt001-mcp, and camt-exceptions —
installed as extras (see Routing).
The core is light. Add the families you need as extras (or [all]):
pip install "iso20022-mcp[all]" # every family
pip install "iso20022-mcp[pacs,camt]" # just interbank + statements
pip install iso20022-mcp # core only; families report as not installed
# or run without installing:
uvx --from "iso20022-mcp[all]" iso20022-mcpMCP client config (e.g. Claude Desktop):
{
"mcpServers": {
"iso20022": {
"command": "iso20022-mcp"
}
}
}The 7 routing meta-tools:
search — Find message types by use-case / keyword ("reconciliation", "pacs.008"). (families: all — catalogue)
list_families — List families, their capabilities, and which backing packages are installed. (families: all)
list_servers — Full suite map: families + E&I messages + specialized servers (reconcile, agent-payment bridge). (families: all)
describe — Required fields + input JSON Schema for a message type. (families: all)
validate — Validate records against a message type's schema. (families: all)
generate — Generate a validated ISO 20022 XML message from records. (families: pain · pacs · acmt)
parse — Parse an inbound ISO 20022 XML message into structured data. (families: pacs · camt)
Operations are capability-aware: generate on a camt.053 statement (an
inbound format) returns a clear, explanatory error rather than failing
obscurely, and every "package not installed" case tells you exactly what to
pip install.
Three ergonomics guarantees hold across the routed families:
Actionable structured errors. Any error a backing server raises —
not just the ones it returns — reaches the agent as an
{"error": "<Type>: <message>"} payload instead of an opaque
tool-execution failure. For pain generation the error lists every
missing or invalid field at once, so one fix-and-retry suffices.
Family aliases for message_type. Bare family names resolve to a
concrete version via the backing server: pain.001 →
pain.001.001.09, pain.008 → pain.008.001.02. Fully-versioned
types are still preferred where you know them.
Per-family parse coverage, stated up front. parse covers the
inbound families only: pacs (e.g. pacs.008) and camt (e.g.
camt.053). The initiation families pain and acmt are
outbound-only — they have no parser here, so don't attempt a
generate→parse round-trip for pain.001 or acmt.001; use validate
(or the backing server's XSD validation) instead.
Prefix | Family | Backing server | generate | parse |
| Customer Credit Transfer Initiation | ✅ | — | |
| FI-to-FI Customer Credit Transfer | ✅ | ✅ | |
| Bank-to-Customer Statement | — | ✅ | |
| Account Opening Instruction | ✅ | — | |
| Cancellation / Resolution (E&I) | ✅ | — |
generate("camt.056.001.12", …) routes to camt-exceptions. The gateway also
surfaces the specialized servers — reconcile-mcp and
ap2-iso20022 — via search and list_servers for discovery
(they're invoked through their own tools).
The gateway imports each backing server lazily and optionally — the core
depends only on mcp, and a family's server is loaded on first use. Message
types are matched on their prefix (pacs.008.001.08 → pacs). The pain
extra requires pain001-mcp >= 0.0.56, the release that carries the
LLM-ergonomic generate surface (field aliases, computed nb_of_txs /
ctrl_sum, all-at-once field errors) the gateway's guarantees build on.
search(query="reconciliation")
→ [{ "message_type": "camt.053", "family": "camt", "package": "camt053-mcp" }]
describe(message_type="pacs.008") # required fields + input schema
validate(message_type="pacs.008", records=[…])
generate(message_type="pain.001", records=[…]) # → { "xml": "<Document>…" }
# bare "pain.001" resolves to pain.001.001.09; on failure the payload is
# { "error": "Missing required fields for pain.001.001.09: …" } listing
# every missing or invalid field at once — fix them all and retry once
parse(message_type="camt.053", xml="<Document>…")
# parse covers pacs + camt only; pain and acmt are outbound-onlyFor the dedicated reconciliation engine that matches camt.053 statements
against expected pain.001 payments, see reconcile-mcp.
git clone https://github.com/sebastienrousseau/iso20022-mcp
cd iso20022-mcp
python -m venv .venv && . .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e . && pip install pytest pytest-cov ruff black mypy
pytest # 100% branch coverage gate (backends faked)
ruff check iso20022_mcp tests && black --check iso20022_mcp tests && mypy iso20022_mcpLicensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
mcp-name: io.github.sebastienrousseau/iso20022-mcp
Describe a message type: its required fields and input JSON Schema, resolved from the family's backing server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_type | Yes | ISO 20022 message type, e.g. 'pain.001.001.09', 'pacs.008' or 'camt.053'. For pain messages a fully-versioned type is preferred; the bare family name 'pain.001' resolves to 'pain.001.001.09'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it resolves from the backing server and returns schema details, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No superfluous words, and it is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, without needing further elaboration.
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 already provides a detailed description of the 'message_type' parameter with examples. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond repeating that it describes a message type, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the tool describes a message type, providing its required fields and input JSON Schema. It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('message type'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'validate' or 'generate'.
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?
The description implies that this tool is used to get detailed schema information from the backing server. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a validated ISO 20022 XML message from records; the XML document is returned in the 'xml' key. Supported for initiation and interbank families (pain, pacs, acmt); statement families (camt) are inbound-only and return an explanatory error. On failure the 'error' value lists every missing or invalid field at once — fix them all and retry once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| records | Yes | List of flat record objects (field name → value). Field names come from the family's input schema — call describe(message_type) for the required fields. For pain.001 credit transfers the key fields are: id, date ('YYYY-MM-DD' accepted), initiator_name, payment_id, requested_execution_date ('YYYY-MM-DD'), debtor_name, debtor_account_IBAN, debtor_agent_BIC, creditor_name, creditor_account_IBAN, creditor_agent_BIC, payment_amount (alias 'amount'), currency (alias 'payment_currency'), remittance_information; batch_booking takes JSON true/false, and nb_of_txs/ctrl_sum are computed automatically. IBAN and BIC values are strictly validated, never coerced. | |
| message_type | Yes | ISO 20022 message type, e.g. 'pain.001.001.09', 'pacs.008' or 'camt.053'. For pain messages a fully-versioned type is preferred; the bare family name 'pain.001' resolves to 'pain.001.001.09'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations: error behavior (lists all missing/invalid fields, retry once), family support with explanatory error for camt. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true (generation is a pure computation).
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?
Two well-structured sentences, front-loading the main action and return key. No wasted words, though could benefit from breaks for readability.
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?
Covers all key aspects: what it does, input format (records, message_type), output format (xml key, error key), supported families, error handling, and retry policy. Complete for a generation tool with validation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant detail for 'records' parameter with field examples, validation notes (IBAN/BIC strictly validated), and automatic computation of nb_of_txs/ctrl_sum. Also explains message_type version resolution.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Generate' and resource 'validated ISO 20022 XML message', and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate and parse by focusing on creation. It also specifies supported families (pain, pacs, acmt) and restrictions (camt inbound-only).
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 from the purpose, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., validate, parse). No when-not or alternative suggestions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List every ISO 20022 family the gateway routes to (pain, pacs, camt, acmt): its capabilities, backing package, and whether that package is installed in this environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns capabilities, backing package, and installation status, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes all necessary details without any wasted words.
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?
With zero parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema available (not shown but mentioned), the description provides complete context for the tool's behavior and return values.
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?
There are no parameters in the input schema, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('ISO 20022 families') and clarifies the scope (capabilities, backing package, installation status). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search and list_servers.
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?
The description clearly states what the tool does (list families and their details). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes its purpose obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the whole ISO 20022 suite the gateway knows: the message families (pain/pacs/camt/acmt), the Exceptions & Investigations messages (camt.056/camt.029), and the specialized servers (reconciliation, agent-payment bridge) with what each does.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what the tool returns (families, exceptions, specialized servers). 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists multiple items concisely. It is clear but slightly lengthy; however, all information is relevant and earned its place.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides adequate context for what the tool returns. It is complete for a list tool.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 that the tool lists the entire ISO 20022 suite known to the gateway, including specific message families (pain/pacs/camt/acmt), exceptions/investigations messages (camt.056/camt.029), and specialized servers with their functions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_families' which likely only lists families.
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?
The description implies usage for obtaining an overview of the gateway's capabilities, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search' or 'describe'. However, the sibling tool names provide context, and the description is clear enough to differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Parse an inbound ISO 20022 XML message into structured data. Parse coverage is per-family: pacs (e.g. pacs.008) and camt (e.g. camt.053) only. The initiation families pain and acmt are outbound-only — they have NO parser here, so do not attempt a generate→parse round-trip for pain.001 or acmt.001; use 'validate' or the backing server's XSD validation instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | Yes | Raw ISO 20022 XML to parse. | |
| message_type | Yes | ISO 20022 message type, e.g. 'pain.001.001.09', 'pacs.008' or 'camt.053'. For pain messages a fully-versioned type is preferred; the bare family name 'pain.001' resolves to 'pain.001.001.09'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying that pain and acmt families have no parser, preventing a wasteful generate-parse round-trip. No contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence could be slightly more streamlined, but it efficiently conveys essential scope limitations. No redundant information; every sentence serves a clear function.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are not needed. The description covers supported families, exclusions, parameter usage tips, and corrects potential misconceptions (no round-trip for pain/acmt). For a parse tool with two well-documented parameters, this is complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the expected format for message_type (prefer fully-versioned for pain; bare family name resolves to a default) and clarifies that xml is 'Raw ISO 20022 XML'. This reduces ambiguity for the agent.
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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Parse an inbound ISO 20022 XML message into structured data.' It then explicitly lists supported families (pacs, camt) and distinguishes from siblings by noting that pain and acmt families are not supported for parsing, which is a key differentiator from the 'validate' and 'generate' tools.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for inbound pacs/camt messages) and when not to (for pain/acmt families), directing the agent to use 'validate' or XSD validation instead. It also advises on the format of the message_type parameter, including default version resolution for pain messages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the ISO 20022 catalogue by use-case, message type or keyword (e.g. 'reconciliation', 'make a payment', 'pacs.008') and get the matching message types, their family, and which package provides them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Use-case, message type or keyword. Empty = all. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the search scope and return structure (matching message types, family, package), which goes beyond the annotations.
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 sentence that is informative without redundancy. It includes examples and specifies outputs, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the tool's purpose, usage examples, and outputs, but lacks mention of result limits or pagination. Still, it is reasonably complete for a simple search tool.
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 for the only parameter 'query'. The tool description adds examples ('reconciliation', 'make a payment', 'pacs.008') and reinforces the schema description, providing extra clarity on usage.
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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'ISO 20022 catalogue', and specifies what is returned ('matching message types, their family, and which package provides them'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_families and list_servers, which handle different operations.
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?
The description provides context on when to use the tool via examples ('use-case, message type or keyword'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The usage is clear, but lacks exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate records for a message type against its JSON Schema, via the family's backing server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| records | Yes | List of flat record objects (field name → value). Field names come from the family's input schema — call describe(message_type) for the required fields. For pain.001 credit transfers the key fields are: id, date ('YYYY-MM-DD' accepted), initiator_name, payment_id, requested_execution_date ('YYYY-MM-DD'), debtor_name, debtor_account_IBAN, debtor_agent_BIC, creditor_name, creditor_account_IBAN, creditor_agent_BIC, payment_amount (alias 'amount'), currency (alias 'payment_currency'), remittance_information; batch_booking takes JSON true/false, and nb_of_txs/ctrl_sum are computed automatically. IBAN and BIC values are strictly validated, never coerced. | |
| message_type | Yes | ISO 20022 message type, e.g. 'pain.001.001.09', 'pacs.008' or 'camt.053'. For pain messages a fully-versioned type is preferred; the bare family name 'pain.001' resolves to 'pain.001.001.09'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety and non-modifying nature are known. The description adds 'via the family's backing server,' which is minor but not critical. It does not elaborate on potential side effects (none expected) or performance characteristics, but given the annotation coverage, the description adds adequate context.
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 sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the verb 'validate.' It contains no filler, tautology, or redundancy. Every word contributes to defining the tool's core purpose.
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?
Given the tool has only 2 well-described parameters, an output schema (not shown but exists), and no nested objects, the description sufficiently covers the main operation. It does not mention output format or error handling, but the output schema is expected to fill that gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role within the sibling toolset.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool-level description does not describe parameters; however, the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed (e.g., records lists example fields for pain.001, message_type explains versioning). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the action ('validate records'), the resource ('for a message type against its JSON Schema'), and the mechanism ('via the family's backing server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe (which returns the schema) and parse (which handles different operations).The verb+resource combination is specific and 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?
The description implies the primary use case—validating records against a schema—and provides context (backing server). While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage. A more explicit exclusion (e.g., 'for schema retrieval use describe') would elevate to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.5describegeneratelist_familieslist_serversparsesearchvalidateScored across 7 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes, but list_families and list_servers overlap in listing families, which could cause confusion. Search, describe, validate, generate, and parse are clearly differentiated.
All tool names follow a verb or verb_noun pattern using snake_case, e.g., list_families, describe, generate. No mixed conventions or inconsistent casing.
With 7 tools covering discovery, schema retrieval, validation, generation, and parsing, the count is well-scoped for the domain of ISO 20022 message handling.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: discovery, schema, validation, generation, and parsing. However, generation and parsing are asymmetric across families (e.g., no parse for pain/acmt), leaving minor gaps.
Generate and validate SEPA ISO 20022 XML (pain.001, pain.008) and SWIFT MT103 payment messages.
ISO20022Oracle - 12 ISO 20022 tools: pacs/pain/camt parsing, MX validation, MT migration.
Validate, generate & convert EU e-invoices (UBL, CII, XRechnung, Factur-X) — EN 16931 pre-validated.
Generate & validate EN 16931 e-invoices (Factur-X, ZUGFeRD, XRechnung); verification certificates
