Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

InvoiceVerify

by app.lovable.peppol-invoice-compass
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a Belgian client list on Peppol

check_belgian_peppol_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check up to 25 Belgian companies (enterprise or VAT numbers) for Peppol receivability under both Belgian IDs — 0208 (enterprise number) and 9925 (VAT number). Returns per company: receivable under both, only 0208, only 9925, neither, or unknown, with the risk and what to fix in Dutch, French or English. Uses one metered call per valid company; unreadable numbers are free. Requires an InvoiceVerify account (OAuth sign-in).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage of the explanations: en (default), nl or fr.
companiesYes1 to 25 Belgian enterprise or VAT numbers (strings or {id, name}). Split longer lists into several calls.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedInput schema / properties / companies / items / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "maxLength": 80,
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "id": {
-        "description": "Enterprise or VAT number, e.g. BE0403170701 or 0403.170.701",
-        "maxLength": 80,
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "description": "Optional client name to echo back",
-        "maxLength": 200,
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "id"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 80,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "description": "Enterprise or VAT number, e.g. BE0403170701 or 0403.170.701",
+        "maxLength": 80,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "description": "Optional client name to echo back",
+        "maxLength": 200,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing the metering model (one metered call per valid company, unreadable numbers free) and the authentication prerequisite (InvoiceVerify account via OAuth). It also enumerates the possible per-company outcomes, which is the behavioral detail an agent needs before spending calls.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then outcomes, then cost and auth. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still enumerates the return categories (both, only 0208, only 9925, neither, unknown) and what accompanies them. Combined with the billing and auth disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what the id values actually represent (checked under both 0208 and 9925) and that lang controls the language of the explanations, adding interpretive meaning to the enum rather than restating it.

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 (check), a specific resource (Belgian companies' Peppol receivability), the batch cap (up to 25), and the exact ID schemes examined (0208 and 9925). The 'Belgian' scope and batch framing clearly separate it from the generic sibling check_peppol_receivability, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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 use context: Belgian client lists, either enterprise or VAT numbers, with the instruction to split longer lists into several calls. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as check_peppol_receivability or lookup_peppol_participant and say when to prefer those, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All InvoiceVerify toolsInspect
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