Skip to main content
Glama

Generate pain XML from records

generate_message
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate validated ISO 20022 pain XML messages from in-memory payment records. Supports multiple message types and returns XSD-validated XML or error details.

Instructions

Generate a validated ISO 20022 pain XML message from in-memory records.

This is the primary generation tool: pass records you already hold in
memory. Use ``generate_message_from_file`` when the data lives in a CSV
on disk, and ``generate_message_async`` for very large batches you want
to run off the event loop. The result is XSD-validated before return; no
file is written.

Records are normalized before rendering: 'amount'/'currency' aliases,
JSON booleans, and bare 'YYYY-MM-DD' dates are accepted, and
nb_of_txs/ctrl_sum are computed from the records. On failure the
``{"error": ...}`` payload lists every missing or invalid field at
once. IBAN/BIC values are strictly validated, never coerced.

Returns the validated XML document as a string, or a JSON-encoded
``{"error": ...}`` payload if generation fails.

Args:
    message_type: A supported ISO 20022 pain message type.
    records: One or more flat payment records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordsYesOne or more flat payment records (dicts of field name → value). Key fields (see get_input_schema for the full contract): id, date (payment-initiation timestamp; 'YYYY-MM-DD' is accepted and rendered as midnight), 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'; max two decimals), currency (alias: 'payment_currency'; ISO 4217, e.g. 'EUR'), remittance_information. batch_booking accepts JSON true/false. nb_of_txs and ctrl_sum are computed automatically from the records and may be omitted. payment_method defaults to 'TRF' and charge_bearer to 'SLEV'. IBAN and BIC values are strictly validated and never coerced.
message_typeYesA supported ISO 20022 pain message type. Must be exactly one of: 'pain.001.001.03', 'pain.001.001.04', 'pain.001.001.05', 'pain.001.001.06', 'pain.001.001.07', 'pain.001.001.08', 'pain.001.001.09', 'pain.001.001.10', 'pain.001.001.11', 'pain.001.001.12', 'pain.001.001.13', 'pain.008.001.02', 'pain.001', 'pain.008' (see list_message_types). The bare family names 'pain.001' and 'pain.008' are accepted as aliases for 'pain.001.001.09' and 'pain.008.001.02'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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 rich behavioral context: normalization of records, computation of nb_of_txs/ctrl_sum, strict IBAN/BIC validation, error payload format, and return type. No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear paragraphs: purpose/alternatives, normalization/validation, return type, then args. It is comprehensive but slightly verbose; some information is repeated (e.g., IBAN/BIC validation). Still, efficient for the detail provided.

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 complexity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is very complete. It covers purpose, alternatives, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and validation. Only minor gap: does not explicitly state output type, but returns are described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by listing key fields for 'records', explaining aliases and defaults, and describing enum aliases for 'message_type'. Provides meaningful context beyond schema.

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 description states it generates a validated ISO 20022 pain XML message from in-memory records. It uses specific verb 'generate' and resource 'pain XML', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'from in-memory records'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (pass records in memory) and when to use alternatives (generate_message_from_file for CSV on disk, generate_message_async for large batches). Also mentions validation and no file written.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/pain001-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server