Wise MCP Server

Get a recipient

get_recipient

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a saved Wise recipient by ID to view its full account details as stored in Wise.

Instructions

One saved recipient by id, with its full account details as Wise holds them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The recipient id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is the recipient as Wise holds it, implying stored rather than computed data, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or belongs to another profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and no redundant wording. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description does enough: it identifies the lookup key and characterizes the return as full account details. The only gap is the absence of any statement about missing or inaccessible recipient ids.

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 the single id parameter is already documented with an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The phrase 'by id' restates the schema rather than adding format, range, or provenance guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('One saved recipient by id') and its scope ('full account details as Wise holds them'), which separates it from list_recipients and find_recipient by the id-based lookup. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'by id' implies the caller must already hold a recipient id, which implicitly excludes find_recipient and list_recipients as entry points. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_recipient_requirements, and no guidance for a caller who only has a name or account number.

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