USE THIS to verify an IBAN (international bank account number) before relying on it — instead of guessing whether it looks right. Checks the country, the country-specific length, and the ISO 7064 mod-97 checksum, and returns the country, check digits and BBAN. Call this whenever a user supplies a bank account for a payment, payout or invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | The IBAN to validate; spaces are ignored. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by detailing the validation steps (country, length, checksum) and return fields, providing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with imperative 'USE THIS', no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema; description fully explains what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns. Complete for the given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% with one parameter. Description adds 'spaces are ignored,' which is additional useful information beyond the schema description. Provides meaningful extra context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly defines the tool's purpose: verifying IBANs. It specifies the checks performed (country, length, checksum) and what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling validation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States when to use ('whenever a user supplies a bank account for a payment, payout or invoice') and provides an explicit directive ('USE THIS... instead of guessing'). Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but context is clear given sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.