Wise MCP Server

Get a transfer

get_transfer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Wise transfer by ID to check its status, amounts, exchange rate, and reference before deciding whether to pay or cancel it.

Instructions

One transfer by id: its status, amounts, rate and reference.

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_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that by naming the payload fields an agent will get back, which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found behavior, permission scoping, or error cases.

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 zero filler; the resource and lookup key come first and the returned fields follow. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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 rich annotations, the essentials are present, and the field list compensates for the missing output schema. However, an agent still cannot tell from the description what happens on an invalid or unauthorized id, or how this call relates to the other transfer endpoints.

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 sole parameter 'id' is documented as an integer transfer id with an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description only echoes that the lookup is by id, adding no format, prefix, or sourcing 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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: fetch a single transfer by id, and enumerates the returned data (status, amounts, rate, reference). This distinguishes it from list_transfers and get_transfer_requirements by the 'one transfer by id' framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_transfers (multiple records) or get_receipt (proof of payment). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by id'.

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