Skip to main content
Glama

Validate a postal address

validate_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a postal address against payment-rail address policies to determine if it clears SWIFT CBPR+ 2026 hybrid-or-structured requirements.

Instructions

Validate one postal address against an address policy.

Use this to decide whether an address will clear a rail. The default
``hybrid_or_structured`` policy is the November 14, 2026 cliff rule
(SWIFT CBPR+, HVPS+, T2 RTGS, CHAPS, Fedwire, Lynx): it rejects fully
unstructured addresses. Findings mirror the library's pipeline severity
(a policy rejection is a blocking finding).

Returns ``{"policy": str, "classification": str, "is_acceptable": bool,
"findings": [{"severity": str, "message": str}, ...]}`` or an
``{"error": ...}`` payload.

Args:
    address: The postal address as a dict of snake_case fields.
    policy: The validation policy to enforce (see the enum values).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNoPostal-address validation policy. 'unstructured_ok' permits any form (pre-cutover / generic); 'hybrid_or_structured' rejects fully unstructured addresses (the SWIFT CBPR+ UG2026 default; its 14 November 2026 start was deferred on 27 August 2026 and Swift confirms new timing by December); 'structured_only' requires full structured form. Must be one of: 'unstructured_ok', 'hybrid_or_structured', 'structured_only'.hybrid_or_structured
addressYesAn ISO 20022 PostalAddress27 as a dict of snake_case fields, e.g. {'strt_nm': 'High St', 'bldg_nb': '1', 'pst_cd': 'AB1 2CD', 'twn_nm': 'London', 'ctry': 'GB'} and optional 'adr_line' (list of free-form lines). 'ctry' must be ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.0.12
    • changedInput schema / properties / policy / description
      Previous value: -"Postal-address validation policy. 'unstructured_ok' permits any form (pre-cliff / generic); 'hybrid_or_structured' rejects fully unstructured addresses (the SWIFT CBPR+ UG2026 default in force from 14 November 2026); 'structured_only' requires full structured form. Must be one of: 'unstructured_ok', 'hybrid_or_structured', 'structured_only'."New value: +"Postal-address validation policy. 'unstructured_ok' permits any form (pre-cutover / generic); 'hybrid_or_structured' rejects fully unstructured addresses (the SWIFT CBPR+ UG2026 default; its 14 November 2026 start was deferred on 27 August 2026 and Swift confirms new timing by December); 'structured_only' requires full structured form. Must be one of: 'unstructured_ok', 'hybrid_or_structured', 'structured_only'."
  2. Addedv0.0.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by describing the exact return JSON, the error payload, and the finding-severity semantics (policy rejection is blocking). No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose and return contract. However, the final Args section duplicates detailed parameter descriptions already present in the schema, making the description longer than necessary.

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?

Because no output schema is provided, the description appropriately supplies an explicit return format and error payload, which is essential for the agent. It also covers the default policy and its effective-date context. It does not mention routing multi-address cases to validate_addresses, but that is a minor gap.

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% and both parameters are thoroughly explained in the input schema, including the policy enum meanings and the address object shape. The description's Args section only restates this information, so it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 opening line, 'Validate one postal address against an address policy,' uses a specific verb and resource and clarifies that this operates on a single address. This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_addresses (plural), classify_address, and repair_address.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this to decide whether an address will clear a rail' provides a clear intended-use context, and the default policy explanation gives concrete decision criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when to use a sibling tool instead, such as validate_addresses for batch validation.

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