Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Veille MCP Server

Veille MCP Server

Official
by veilleio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

IBAN Validation

vat_iban
Read-only

Validate an IBAN and retrieve associated bank details, including BIC/SWIFT code, bank name, country, BBAN breakdown, and SEPA zone membership.

Instructions

IBAN Validation. Validate any IBAN and retrieve associated bank details. Returns the BIC/SWIFT code, bank name, country, BBAN structural breakdown, and SEPA zone membership. Credit cost: 1 credit per call.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "vat_iban"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe IBAN to validate (e.g. FR7630006000011234567890189).
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact fields returned and the per-call credit cost of 1, which matters for budget-aware agents. It stops short of stating error/validation-failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return values and then cost. No redundant restatement of the title beyond the leading identifier, and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by listing the response fields, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is behavior on invalid or non-IBAN input and any rate/coverage limits, which an agent might want before 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% — both 'query' (with an example IBAN) and 'fields' (with dot-notation example and the note that it does not change credit cost) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Validate any IBAN') and enumerates the returned data (BIC/SWIFT, bank name, country, BBAN breakdown, SEPA membership). This makes it unmistakable against the sibling tools (vat_rates, intelligence_*), which handle entirely different resources.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Validate any IBAN' — an agent can infer it is the tool for checking an IBAN and looking up its bank. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over anything else, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens with malformed input; only the credit-cost line hints at a decision factor.

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