openfang-rail

Batch validate (up to 50 checks, one payment)

batch_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run up to 50 identifier checks (IBAN / LEI / VAT / UK company / SWIFT / ABA / EIN / IFSC / ABN / Luhn / ISBN / E.164 / SEDOL) in ONE paid call: one voucher, one settlement, one signed XDR-1 receipt covering the whole batch. Flat price regardless of count — at 50 items, 10x cheaper per check than single calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	List of {tool, value} checks (max 50).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`count`	Yes
`scope`	No
`results`	Yes
`valid_count`	No
`invalid_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / tool / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "iban-check",
-  "lei-check",
-  "vat-mod97-check",
-  "company-number-format",
-  "swift-bic-check",
-  "aba-routing-check",
-  "ein-format-check",
-  "ifsc-check",
-  "abn-check",
-  "luhn-check",
-  "isbn-check",
-  "e164-check",
-  "sedol-check",
-  "isin-check",
-  "ean13-check",
-  "gstin-check",
-  "context-distill"
-]New value: +[
+  "iban-check",
+  "lei-check",
+  "vat-mod97-check",
+  "company-number-format",
+  "swift-bic-check",
+  "aba-routing-check",
+  "ein-format-check",
+  "ifsc-check",
+  "abn-check",
+  "luhn-check",
+  "isbn-check",
+  "e164-check",
+  "sedol-check"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / value / description

Previous value: -"the identifier (or text, for context-distill) to check"New value: +"the identifier to check"

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: one voucher, one settlement, one signed XDR-1 receipt, and flat pricing. However, it does not clarify behavior if a single check in the batch fails, which is a meaningful gap for batch operations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core batch capability, then provides billing and cost details that directly help an agent decide whether to use it. Every clause adds useful 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?

The description is complete enough for selection and invocation: it covers the batch scope, pricing model, billing artifacts, and the maximum count is enforced by the schema. Minor gaps remain around partial failure semantics and exactly what the output/receipt contains, but the schema and annotations already cover a large portion of the needed context.

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%, with a clear items structure and an enum of tool values plus descriptions for each field. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the list of validators. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific action ('Run up to 50 identifier checks') and names the exact resource and scope (IBAN / LEI / VAT / UK company / SWIFT / ABA / EIN / IFSC / ABN / Luhn / ISBN / E.164 / SEDOL). It also distinguishes itself from the single-check sibling tools by emphasizing 'in ONE paid call' and comparing to 'single calls'.

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?

The description makes clear that this tool is for running multiple checks in one paid transaction and gives an economic rationale ('at 50 items, 10x cheaper per check than single calls'). It does not explicitly state negative conditions for when not to use it, but the batch-versus-single distinction effectively communicates its primary use case.

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

All openfang-rail tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct identifier type or on-chain data source, and composite wrappers like batch_validate and vendor_onboarding_pack are clearly labeled as batch operations. Minor confusion is possible among on-chain snapshot tools like balance_check, erc20_balance, and tx_activity, but the descriptions mostly resolve the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Validators largely follow a predictable *_check suffix, with occasional format/validate variants like ein_format_check and company_number_format. On-chain and rental tools break the pattern with descriptive nouns such as block_info, tx_activity, and rental_verdict, so the naming is not perfectly uniform but remains navigable.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is a heavy surface for one server, spanning three distinct clusters: identifier validation, Base-chain inspection, and rental due diligence. Each tool has a clear purpose, but the set feels broad and could be split into smaller purpose-focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The identifier validation surface is well covered across many international formats and includes useful batch/package workflows. Minor gaps exist, such as no registry existence lookup for UK company numbers and no generic transaction-status tool, but the core due-diligence workflows are not left with dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?