Wise MCP Server

Fields a new recipient needs

get_recipient_requirements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Determine the bank-detail fields Wise requires to save a recipient for a currency or quote, so you know exactly which details to request from the person.

Instructions

The bank-detail fields Wise needs to save a recipient paid in a currency, by account type (iban, sort_code, aba, ...). Pass the currency they are paid in, or a quote_id from create_quote. Use the answer to know what to ask the person for; never fill bank details from an email.

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": "get_recipient_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`profile`	No	The Wise profile id to act for. Defaults to WISE_PROFILE_ID, else the only business profile. See list_profiles.
`currency`	No	The currency the recipient is paid in, such as EUR.
`quote_id`	No	A quote_id from create_quote, instead of currency.
`source_currency`	No	The currency you pay from. Defaults to the same currency; some routes ask for different fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real substance: that the result is a field checklist keyed by account type and that it should not be sourced from email. It stops short of saying what the response looks like or whether results vary by route, which would matter with no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its dimensions before the calling instructions and the safety caveat. Little waste, though the account-type parenthetical is illustrative rather than informative.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, there is no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned requirements, which an agent would only learn by calling.

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%, so both currency and quote_id are already documented, including that quote_id substitutes for currency. The description reinforces the either/or choice and mentions source_currency only implicitly ('the currency they are paid in'), adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: the bank-detail fields Wise needs to save a recipient paid in a given currency, broken out by account type (iban, sort_code, aba). That is distinct from create_recipient (which writes) and from get_transfer_requirements (a different resource), so an agent can route 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage context: pass the paid-in currency or a quote_id from create_quote, and use the answer to know what to ask the person for. It also states a clear prohibition (never fill bank details from an email). It does not name a sibling alternative such as check_bank_details, which is the one gap keeping this below 5.

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