iso20022-mcp

generate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create validated ISO 20022 XML messages from records for outbound pain, pacs, and acmt families; returns XML or lists all missing and invalid fields for correction.

Instructions

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. When to use: Use to create standardized XML messages for outbound initiation and interbank transfer families (pain.001, pacs.008, acmt.001, camt.056). When NOT to use: Do not use for inbound reporting messages (camt.053); statement families are inbound-only and have no generator. Behavior: Pure transformation; read-only and idempotent with no external side-effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.5Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'read-only and idempotent' line adds little. The real value is the failure contract: errors list every missing/invalid field at once with an instruction to fix all and retry once, plus the inbound-only camt error behavior — neither is derivable from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scope, error behavior and usage routing. Mildly redundant: the camt inbound-only limitation is stated twice (once in the family sentence, once under 'When NOT to use'), which costs a little without adding information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter transformation tool with an output schema, the description covers input routing, failure semantics and family limitations. The mention of the 'xml' return key duplicates the output schema slightly, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%: the records field documents key pain.001 fields, aliases and strict IBAN/BIC validation, and message_type documents versioning and family resolution. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a validated ISO 20022 XML message from records') plus where the result lands ('the xml key'). It also delineates scope by family (pain/pacs/acmt supported, camt inbound-only), which cleanly separates it from siblings like validate and parse.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections name concrete message types (pain.001, pacs.008, acmt.001, camt.056 supported; camt.053 excluded because statement families have no generator). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server