Wise MCP Server

List recipients

list_recipients

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists saved recipients, newest first, with masked account details to help you find the recipient ID for payment requests and match recipients by name and currency.

Instructions

List saved recipients (people and businesses this account can pay), newest first, with a masked account summary. Use this to find the recipient id for a payment request: pay only recipients already saved here, and match by name and currency.

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": "list_recipients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	How many per page, 1-20.
`cursor`	No	The `next` value from the previous page.
`profile`	No	The Wise profile id to act for. Defaults to WISE_PROFILE_ID, else the only business profile. See list_profiles.
`currency`	No	Only recipients in these currencies, comma-separated: EUR,GBP.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that with result ordering (newest first) and the fact that account details come back masked. It does not describe page-size limits or what happens at the end of the cursor sequence, but those are handled in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the intended use. Nothing is redundant with the title or with the annotations.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, how it is ordered, what the account data looks like (masked), and how it feeds into a payment request. Only minor details, such as whether the result set is paginated by cursor in practice, are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so size, cursor, profile and currency are all documented in the schema itself. The description only adds a workflow hint for filtering ('match by name and currency'); it gives no extra syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list saved recipients), defines what a recipient is (people and businesses this account can pay), and adds ordering (newest first) and return shape (masked account summary). This clearly separates it from get_recipient and find_recipient, which operate on a single known recipient.

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 an explicit purpose ('use this to find the recipient id for a payment request') plus a hard business constraint ('pay only recipients already saved here, and match by name and currency'). It does not name when to prefer the sibling find_recipient or get_recipient instead, so routing between recipient tools is still partly inferred.

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