pain001-mcp

Suggest review-only record fixes

suggest_record_fix

Read-onlyIdempotent

Suggest review-only patches for non-financial fields in a payment record. Deterministically fixes validation errors without altering financial data.

Instructions

Suggest deterministic, review-only fixes to non-financial fields.

Returns patches or a cannot_autofix reason. Never changes IBANs, BICs,
accounts, amounts or currencies, even for whitespace. Review every
candidate and validate the full record before generating a payment.

Args:
    record: A flat payment record, left unchanged.
    validation_error: Finding with field (or path) and rule keys.
    message_type: Supported schema supplying trusted field bounds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record`	Yes	One flat payment record; never modified.
`message_type`	No	A 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.008.001.08', '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'.	pain.001.001.03
`validation_error`	Yes	Finding with field (or path) and rule keys.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.0.71Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral constraints beyond these: 'Never changes IBANs, BICs, accounts, amounts or currencies, even for whitespace' and 'deterministic'. It also clarifies the output behavior (patches or reason). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact: a purpose sentence, an output sentence, and a constraint/usage sentence. It front-loads the purpose and constraints, with no wasted words or redundant content. The structure is clean and efficient.

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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, its output, its constraints, and when to use it. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema handles that. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% per context signals, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema (e.g., 'record: A flat payment record, left unchanged' vs. schema 'One flat payment record; never modified'). It adds minimal new meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Suggest'), a specific resource ('record fixes'), and precise constraints ('review-only', 'non-financial fields', 'deterministic'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like validate_records (which validates) and generate_message (which generates), and explicitly notes it returns patches or a cannot_autofix reason, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it is meant to be used before generating a payment, and is review-only. It also implicitly defines when not to use it (for financial fields, since it never changes them). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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