Validate an IBAN (International Bank Account Number) by structure + the ISO 7064 mod-97 checksum. Catches typos/invalid accounts before you initiate a transfer. Pure-algorithm; no data leaves the machine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation is pure-algorithm and no data leaves the machine, indicating no side effects or external calls. However, it does not mention any limitations or error handling behaviors.
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?
The description is concise at three sentences, each adding value: validation method, practical use case, and privacy guarantee. No extraneous information.
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?
The description covers what, how, and why, and adds privacy context. However, it does not specify the return format or what happens on validation failure (e.g., boolean result vs. error message), which would be helpful given no output schema.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (iban). The description does not add any formatting details, examples, or constraints beyond the parameter name. The agent gains no additional understanding of valid input formats.
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?
The description clearly states the tool validates IBAN numbers by structure and checksum, and mentions it catches typos before transfers. It is distinct from sibling validation tools like validate_aba_routing or validate_eu_vat due to the specific IBAN focus.
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?
The description implies use before initiating a transfer but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validating other account numbers). No exclusions or comparative guidance provided.
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 distinct type of validation or calculation (email domain, payout, reorder point, payment split, ABA routing, EORI, EU VAT, GTIN, IBAN, VAT rate). There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clarify the specific identifier or operation.
Most tool names use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., validate_aba_routing, check_email_domain), but some are noun phrases (payout_reconciliation, reorder_point, stripe_connect_split, vat_rate_by_country). While clearly descriptive, the verb-prefix inconsistency slightly reduces predictability.
With 10 tools, the server covers a focused set of commerce validation and calculation tasks without being too sparse or overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear, independent purpose.
The tool set covers key commerce validations (email, bank routing, IBAN, VAT, EORI, GTIN) plus useful calculations (payout, reorder, payment split, VAT rates). Minor gaps exist (e.g., phone/address/credit card validation, currency conversion), but the coverage is coherent for the stated domain.