pain001-mcp

List scheme profiles

list_scheme_profiles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available payment-scheme rulebook profiles so you can pick the correct profile before validating, simulating, or staging a payment batch.

Instructions

List every payment-scheme rulebook profile the core ships.

Use this to choose the ``profile`` for ``validate_payment_scheme`` (or
the ``scheme`` of ``simulate_payment_batch`` and
``stage_payment_batch``) before calling it. Each entry gives the
profile name, a one-line description, the prefix of the rule ids a
rail profile reports (null for the SEPA, cross-border, duplicate and
purpose-mandate profiles), and the public documents it was built
from. Everything comes from the installed pain001; nothing is
restated here.

Returns:
    ``{"count": int, "profiles": [{"name", "description",
    "rule_prefix", "sources"}, ...]}`` in name order.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_scheme_profiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`error`	No
`profiles`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.0.84Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the entry payload fields, that rule_prefix is null for the SEPA/cross-border/duplicate/purpose-mandate profiles, and that content derives from the installed pain001 rather than being restated. It stops short of stating failure modes or what happens if no profiles are installed.

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 the purpose in a single sentence, then usage, then payload contents. The explicit Returns block largely repeats what the output schema already provides, which is the only real redundancy; the rest of the text earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is listed, the ordering (name order), the count field, and the null-rule_prefix edge case. No gap remains that would cause a mis-call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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: "List every payment-scheme rulebook profile the core ships." It also names the sibling tools that consume the output (validate_payment_scheme, simulate_payment_batch, stage_payment_batch), so an agent can place it precisely among the list_* and payment-rail tools without opening the schema.

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 prescribes the workflow: call this to choose the ``profile`` for validate_payment_scheme or the ``scheme`` for the batch tools before invoking them. That is a concrete when-to-use condition tied to named alternatives rather than inferred usage.

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