Bankstatemently

Rate Statement Conversion

rate_statement

Report how well a previously converted bank statement was parsed: submit a 1-5 rating, optionally with structured feedback (only accepted when the rating is 3 or below) and use-case tags. Calling this again for the same document updates your existing rating and clears any previous feedback tied to it. Returns the stored rating state in the response — there is no separate tool to read your own rating back. Every response includes a "summary" field: use it as the single source of truth for what happened.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	Yes	1-5 star rating for this conversion
`feedback`	No	Free-text feedback. Only accepted when rating is 3 or below.
`use_case`	No	Tags describing what you use the converted data for.
`document_id`	Yes	Document ID (from convert_statement or list_statements)
`export_format`	No	Which output format you exported this conversion to (csv, xlsx, qbo, or xero).
`use_case_other`	No	Free-text use case, for when "other" is among the use_case tags.
`feedback_categories`	No	Structured feedback categories. Only accepted when rating is 3 or below.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`error`	No
`rating`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`summary`	No
`useCase`	No
`documentId`	No
`hasFeedback`	No
`useCaseOther`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed9 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / document_id / description

Added value: +"Document ID (from convert_statement or list_statements)"

addedInput schema / properties / export_format / description

Added value: +"Which output format you exported this conversion to (csv, xlsx, qbo, or xero)."

addedInput schema / properties / feedback / description

Added value: +"Free-text feedback. Only accepted when rating is 3 or below."

addedInput schema / properties / feedback_categories / description

Added value: +"Structured feedback categories. Only accepted when rating is 3 or below."

addedInput schema / properties / rating / description

Added value: +"1-5 star rating for this conversion"

addedInput schema / properties / use_case / description

Added value: +"Tags describing what you use the converted data for."

addedInput schema / properties / use_case_other / description

Added value: +"Free-text use case, for when \"other\" is among the use_case tags."

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed7 schema fields changedAug 21, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / document_id / description

Removed value: -"Document ID (from convert_statement or list_statements)"

removedInput schema / properties / export_format / description

Removed value: -"Which output format you exported this conversion to (csv, xlsx, qbo, or xero)."

removedInput schema / properties / feedback / description

Removed value: -"Free-text feedback. Only accepted when rating is 3 or below."

removedInput schema / properties / feedback_categories / description

Removed value: -"Structured feedback categories. Only accepted when rating is 3 or below."

removedInput schema / properties / rating / description

Removed value: -"1-5 star rating for this conversion"

removedInput schema / properties / use_case / description

Removed value: -"Tags describing what you use the converted data for."

removedInput schema / properties / use_case_other / description

Removed value: -"Free-text use case, for when \"other\" is among the use_case tags."

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description is transparent about calling again updating the existing rating and clearing previous feedback, and mentions the response summary. However, this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false, because clearing previous feedback is a destructive side effect. The description and annotations are inconsistent, which is a serious reliability issue.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sentences about returning stored rating state and including a summary field are slightly redundant, but the overall structure is still tight and every sentence adds operational value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the 7-parameter schema, 100% parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the core action, update/overwrite behavior, feedback acceptance conditions, and response interpretation without needing to enumerate return fields.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema by clarifying that structured feedback is only accepted when the rating is 3 or below, and by framing the optional tags. Not every parameter is discussed, but the schema already documents each one well.

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 and resource: 'Report how well a previously converted bank statement was parsed' and 'submit a 1-5 rating'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from conversion and listing siblings such as convert_statement and list_statements.

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?

It gives clear context that the tool is for rating an already-converted statement, and explains the update semantics for repeated calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Bankstatemently 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Core tools are cleanly separated by resource: statements, transactions, transfers, credits, and benchmark all have dedicated entry points. The five analytics tools (aggregate, group_by, compare, time_series, top_n) share metric/filter language, but their distinct output shapes and careful descriptions prevent major confusion, with only group_by vs. time_series/top_n occasionally overlapping.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as convert_statement, list_transactions, rate_statement, and dismiss_statement. The analytics tools (aggregate, compare, group_by, time_series, top_n) break that pattern, but they are still recognizable, consistently styled, and form a meaningful cluster.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the server covers a broad workflow: upload, conversion, retrieval, categorization, analytics, transfer matching, rating, credits, and benchmarking. Each tool maps to a distinct capability, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full statement lifecycle from upload and conversion through retrieval, categorization, analysis, rating, and dismissal, plus useful side capabilities like credits and benchmark evaluation. Minor gaps exist—no permanent deletion and no way to manually edit category mappings—but dismiss_statement and categorize_statement provide adequate workarounds.

Rate Statement Conversion

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources