Skip to main content
Glama
sebastienrousseau

structured-address-fix-mcp

by sebastienrousseau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List address policies

list_policies
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all address policies and their tiers to discover policy IDs for ISO 20022 structured-address preparation.

Instructions

List every available address policy (rulebook) with its tier.

Use this first to discover the ``policy_id`` values the other tools
accept (e.g. ``cbpr-2026``, ``sepa``, ``hvps-plus``,
``generic-structured``).

Returns a list of ``{"id": ..., "title": ..., "tier": ...}`` objects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format (list of objects with id, title, tier), which is useful. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but none are expected for a read-only list. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with a brief example list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important usage guidance is placed first.

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 that there is an output schema (though not shown), the description provides a summary of return values. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers purpose, usage, and output format sufficiently.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 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 clearly states that the tool lists all available address policies with their tier. It uses specific verbs ('list') and resource ('address policies') and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about classification, assessment, and remediation.

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 tells the agent to use this tool first to discover policy_id values for other tools, providing concrete examples like 'cbpr-2026' and 'sepa'. This offers clear when-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