Skip to main content
Glama
webimpianteam

Bayarcash MCP Server

get_fpx_banks

Retrieve available FPX banks for online banking payments in Malaysia. Use this tool to access bank lists when setting up payment methods through the Bayarcash MCP Server.

Instructions

Get list of FPX banks for online banking payments

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the API call to retrieve the list of FPX banks from the Bayarcash endpoint '/fpx/banks'. This is the primary implementation logic for the tool.
    async getFpxBanksList(): Promise<FpxBank[]> {
      try {
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.get('/fpx/banks');
        return response.data.data || response.data;
      } catch (error) {
        this.handleError(error);
      }
    }
  • MCP server dispatch handler in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement that invokes the core getFpxBanksList method and returns formatted MCP response.
    case 'get_fpx_banks': {
      const result = await bayarcash.getFpxBanksList();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:202-209 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, defining the tool name, description, and empty input schema.
    {
      name: 'get_fpx_banks',
      description: 'Get list of FPX banks for online banking payments',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {}
      }
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of FPX bank objects returned by the get_fpx_banks tool.
    export interface FpxBank {
      code: string;
      name: string;
      active: boolean;
    }
  • Alternative tool registration and inline handler using Smithery framework, calling the same core getFpxBanksList method.
    server.tool(
      'get_fpx_banks',
      'Get list of FPX banks for online banking payments',
      {},
      async () => {
        const result = await bayarcash.getFpxBanksList();
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }]
        };
      }
    );

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list is in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., bank names, codes, logos) or any behavioral context. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more detail on the return value would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss non-existent parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get list of') and resource ('FPX banks') with the purpose ('for online banking payments'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_payment_channels' by specifying FPX banks specifically rather than general payment channels. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for FPX-specific payments) or when to use other tools like 'get_payment_channels' for broader payment options. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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