Klarbon

Convert an e-invoice

convert_invoice

Converts an e-invoice to another format (for example UBL to XRechnung, or CII to a Factur-X PDF) and validates the result; only a valid file is returned. Costs 1 call per invoice from the account's API balance, or 1 credit once the API balance is empty, charged only on success. Needs an API key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "convert_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target`	Yes	A format id that list_formats shows with convertTo, such as xrechnung or peppol-bis-billing.
`profile`	No	The profile, for formats that have several.
`file_url`	No	A public https address of the file. Private and local addresses are refused.
`filename`	No	The file's name, which helps recognise its format.
`file_base64`	No	The file's bytes as base64. Give this or file_url.
`label_locale`	No	The language of a rendered PDF's labels.
`idempotency_key`	No	Any unique string. Calling again with the same key and arguments within 24 hours never charges again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the billing model (1 call from API balance, then 1 credit), that charges occur only on success, the API-key requirement, and the validation gate that suppresses invalid output. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and an illustrative example, then cost and auth facts. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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?

Covers the operation, validation guarantee, cost, and auth, which is the bulk of what an agent needs for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. It only partially addresses what the returned file looks like (URL vs. base64), a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 every parameter including target, profile, file_url, file_base64, and idempotency_key is already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Converts an e-invoice to another format') and anchors it with concrete examples (UBL to XRechnung, CII to Factur-X PDF). Adding that the result is validated makes it clearly distinct from a pure validation sibling like check_invoice.

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?

Gives clear context: it converts and validates, returns only valid files, requires an API key, and costs one call/credit charged only on success. It does not explicitly say when to prefer check_invoice or when conversion is unnecessary, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All Klarbon tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?