Skip to main content
Glama
sebastienrousseau

pain001-mcp

by sebastienrousseau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Validate IBAN or BIC

validate_identifier
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a single IBAN or BIC identifier and get a clear pass/fail result with error reason. Use for one-off checks of financial identifiers before payment processing.

Instructions

Validate a single financial identifier (IBAN or BIC).

Use this for a one-off identifier check with a clear pass/fail and
reason. To validate identifiers embedded across a whole batch, prefer
``validate_records`` / ``validate_payment_scheme`` instead of calling
this per field.

Returns ``{"kind": str, "value": str, "valid": bool, "error": str}``
(the ``error`` key is present only when ``valid`` is ``False``).

Args:
    kind: One of ``"iban"`` or ``"bic"`` (case-insensitive).
    value: The identifier value to check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesWhich identifier to validate: 'iban' or 'bic' (case-insensitive). Any other value returns an error.
valueYesThe identifier string to check — an IBAN or BIC/SWIFT code matching the chosen kind.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
errorNo
validNo
valueNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.0.71
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "An IBAN or BIC verdict, with the library's message when invalid.",
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "title": "Error",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "title": "Kind",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "valid": {
+      "title": "Valid",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "value": {
+      "title": "Value",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "ValidateIdentifierResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.0.60
  3. Removed
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.0.56
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"Which identifier to validate: 'iban' or 'bic' (case-insensitive). Any other value returns an error."
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Added value: +"The identifier string to check — an IBAN or BIC/SWIFT code matching the chosen kind."
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds the return contract (kind, value, valid, error) and clarifies that the error key appears only when valid is false, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 and well structured: purpose, usage guidance, return format, and parameter details. Every section earns its place, and the key routing information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. It covers purpose, alternatives, return shape, and parameter meaning without any meaningful 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 already well documented in the schema. The Args section mostly restates the schema and adds no significant new meaning, so the baseline of 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 precise action and resource: validating a single financial identifier (IBAN or BIC). It also distinguishes this tool from batch validation siblings, so an agent can tell exactly what it is for.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for one-off identifier checks with a clear pass/fail and reason. It also names validate_records and validate_payment_scheme as the preferred alternatives for batch validation, giving concrete when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools