iso20022-mcp

validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check ISO 20022 record objects against a message type's JSON Schema before XML generation, verifying required fields, date formats, and IBAN/BIC constraints.

Instructions

Validate records for a message type against its JSON Schema, via the family's backing server. When to use: Use before 'generate' to verify record field types, required fields, date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), and IBAN/BIC constraints without generating XML. When NOT to use: Do not use to validate raw XML documents; use the backing server's XSD validation tools or 'parse'. Behavior: Pure deterministic validation; read-only and idempotent with zero network I/O.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuine context beyond them: pure deterministic validation, entirely offline (zero network I/O), and JSON-Schema rather than XSD semantics. It does not describe error/report format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then labeled sections (When to use / When NOT to use / Behavior) that make routing scannable. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, routing, validation scope, and offline behavior adequately for an agent to call it correctly on the first try.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, which even lists the key pain.001 field names, aliases, and type coercions. The description's mentions of YYYY-MM-DD, IBAN/BIC constraints and message-type resolution largely restate schema content rather than adding new semantics.

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 (validate) and resource (records for a message type) against an explicit target (its JSON Schema). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings generate and parse by naming them in the when-not-to-use clause.

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 (before 'generate' to verify field types, required fields, date formats, IBAN/BIC) and when-not-to-use (raw XML documents; use the backing server's XSD validation tools or 'parse'). The alternative and the selecting condition are both named.

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

Deploy Server