Skip to main content
Glama

Factur-X e-invoicing

by io.github.LeBorgneAntoine

Validate e-invoice

validate_invoice
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an existing e-invoice (Factur-X PDF, CII or UBL XML) is compliant, and report why not.

Use on any document you did not produce with generate_invoice (supplier invoices, files from another
system) or to re-check after a fix. Do not use to read the invoice content: call extract_invoice.
Runs XSD then the EN 16931 schematron (plus French rules for fr-ctc). Read-only, nothing stored.
Returns {valid, profile, findings[]} where each finding has the rule id (e.g. BR-CO-10), severity and
message; a non-compliant document is a normal result, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmlNoCII or UBL XML as plain text; alternative to document_base64, give exactly one
checkNofr-ctc (default): EN 16931 + French CTC rules (BR-FR-*). base: EN 16931 only.fr-ctc
document_base64NoFactur-X PDF (the embedded XML is read) or a CII/UBL XML file, base64 encoded

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / check / description
      Previous value: -"EN 16931 base rules or + French CTC rules (default)"New value: +"fr-ctc (default): EN 16931 + French CTC rules (BR-FR-*). base: EN 16931 only."
    • changedInput schema / properties / document_base64 / description
      Previous value: -"Factur-X PDF or XML file, base64 encoded"New value: +"Factur-X PDF (the embedded XML is read) or a CII/UBL XML file, base64 encoded"
    • changedInput schema / properties / xml / description
      Previous value: -"CII or UBL XML as text (alternative to document_base64)"New value: +"CII or UBL XML as plain text; alternative to document_base64, give exactly one"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: read-only, nothing stored, XSD then EN 16931 schematron, optional French CTC rules, and the important note that a non-compliant document is a normal result rather than an error.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. Usage guidance, validation pipeline, and response shape are all covered in four tight sentences without redundancy.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool validates, when to use it, what it runs, its read-only nature, and the shape of its result. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the input schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description restates the document formats and mentions the alternative input methods indirectly, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Check whether... is compliant, and report why not') and names the resource (existing e-invoice in Factur-X PDF, CII, or UBL XML). It clearly differentiates from extract_invoice (read content) and generate_invoice (producing documents).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is given: use on documents not produced by generate_invoice, or to re-check after a fix. It also states when not to use it ('Do not use to read the invoice content') and names the alternative tool. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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

All Factur-X e-invoicing toolsInspect
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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: embed_xml combines existing PDF and XML, extract_invoice reads invoice data, generate_invoice creates new invoices, and validate_invoice checks compliance. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other with 'do not use' guidance, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case: embed_xml, extract_invoice, generate_invoice, validate_invoice. The naming is predictable and consistent across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the core e-invoicing operations without redundancy or bloat. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose, fits within the typical 3-15 range, and each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full document lifecycle relevant to Factur-X: generate (create), extract (read), validate (check), and embed (combine). No obvious gaps exist; the server's stated stateless nature means additional CRUD operations are unnecessary.

Resources