Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

E-Invoice Jurisdiction Mandate Router

route_einvoice_jurisdiction_mandate
Read-onlyIdempotent

E-Invoice Jurisdiction Mandate Router: OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node. By default (compute:"auto") inputs are computed server-side on Cloudflare Workers for gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel; compute:"browser" forces client-side execution and returns a browser delegation URL instead. gpu:true nodes always delegate to the browser. Inputs are processed transiently to compute the response and are not stored, logged, or retained. Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only. Exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. Consumes upstream artifacts from: art-294-einvoice-vat-calc-verifier. Output feeds: art-296-einvoice-transmission-receipt-builder. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-295-einvoice-jurisdiction-mandate-router.html FV-status (published/proven/still-trusted for this spec): /fv-status/8498d0819c941fdb731f9e10f5d93ee929026919cb111a42149821b48b5ac180.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched. Output schema: call describe_tool("route_einvoice_jurisdiction_mandate").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
computeNoCompute mode (v0.4 Compute Binding). "auto" (default) = server for gpu:false nodes with registered kernels; "server" = force server-side; "browser" = always return browser delegation URL. gpu:true nodes always delegate.
parent_hashesNoexecution_hash values from upstream ChainGraph AP2 artifacts to chain from (sets chain.parent_hashes in the export).
parent_tool_idsNotool_id values matching parent_hashes, in the same order.
policy_parametersNoInput parameters for this tool's decision function. For gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel, these are computed server-side when compute is "auto" or "server". See the tool's manifest for field names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "applicable_format": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "mandatory_from": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "phase_status": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "regime_country": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "table_version": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "transmission_channel": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "applicable_format": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mandatory_from": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "phase_status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "regime_country": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "table_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "transmission_channel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: transient non-retention of inputs, AP2 artifact export with execution_hash, and the upstream/downstream chain wiring. That goes meaningfully beyond the structured safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the title but then repeats 'OpenChainGraph compute node', and pads the body with an FV-status URL plus a full sha256 receipt, artifact IDs, and a describe_tool pointer. Much of the prose serves provenance/compliance framing rather than tool selection, so it reads as bloated rather than tight.

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?

For a deterministic compute node with no output schema, the description covers execution modes, privacy handling, chaining inputs/outputs, and points to describe_tool for the output shape. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, missing only a clear semantic statement of the decision being routed.

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 baseline is 3. The description clarifies that policy_parameters are computed server-side for gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel and defers field names to the manifest, but largely restates compute-model behavior already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb+resource ('E-Invoice Jurisdiction Mandate Router') and identifies itself as an OpenChainGraph compliance_mandate compute node, plus names the upstream artifact it consumes and the downstream artifact it feeds. It is distinguishable from routing siblings, though the core semantic purpose is stated more by label than by a plain-language 'this determines X' clause.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides useful compute-mode guidance (auto/server/browser) and a constraint ('use synthetic or anonymised inputs only'), but never states when to pick this tool over siblings like route_partner_stablecoin_jurisdiction or the broader einvoice validate/verify family. Usage is implied by the artifact-chain wiring rather than stated.

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

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite 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