iso20022-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.0.5
- Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a verb or verb_noun pattern using snake_case, e.g., list_families, describe, generate. No mixed conventions or inconsistent casing.
Tool Count5/5With 7 tools covering discovery, schema retrieval, validation, generation, and parsing, the count is well-scoped for the domain of ISO 20022 message handling.
Completeness4/5The 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.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness4/5Given 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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.
- Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness4/5Is 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.
Completeness5/5Given 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does 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.
- Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness5/5Given 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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.
- Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness5/5Given 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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.
- Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness4/5Is 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.
Completeness5/5Given 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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.
- Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness4/5Given 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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.
- Behavior5/5
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.
Conciseness4/5Is 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.
Completeness5/5Given 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does 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.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/iso20022-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server