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) }]
        };
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns (a list) but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the list comes in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the returned list contains, format, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that presumably interacts with payment systems, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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') and resource ('list of FPX banks for online banking payments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, but it's specific enough to understand what this tool does without being tautological.

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 like 'get_payment_channels' or other payment-related siblings. It states what the tool does but gives no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/webimpianteam/bayarcash-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server