Skip to main content
Glama

Receipt Extraction

Server Details

AU GST/ABN receipt extraction — assigns entertainment/ITC tax codes per line, not just OCR.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
ACJLabs/receipt-extraction
GitHub Stars
2
Server Listing
receipt-extraction

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so no ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially perfect.

Tool Count3/5

One tool is borderline; it covers the core extraction task but lacks any supporting functionality like listing or managing extractions.

Completeness2/5

The tool performs extraction well, but there are no tools for validation, retrieval, or batch operations, leaving significant gaps for a receipt extraction service.

Available Tools

1 tool
extract_receiptExtract ReceiptA
Read-only
Inspect

Extracts a structured Receipt (vendor, ABN-checked, GST-aware line items and totals) from a base64-encoded receipt or invoice image/PDF.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mime_typeYes
document_base64Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
dateYes
totalsYes
vendorYes
line_itemsYes
schema_versionYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe for reading. The description adds behavioral context such as ABN-checking and GST-awareness, which are not in annotations. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but given annotations provide a baseline, this is sufficient.

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 a single, direct sentence of 17 words with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficient in conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

Given only two parameters, no siblings, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential inputs and outputs. Missing details like allowed MIME types are minor. The description is generally complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains that document_base64 is the base64-encoded content and mime_type is its type, but it does not list allowed MIME types or describe the base64 format. The description adds some meaning but not full clarity.

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 clearly states the tool extracts a structured Receipt with vendor, ABN-checked, and GST-aware details from base64-encoded images or PDFs. It provides specific verb and resource, and since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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?

The description implies usage when a receipt or invoice image is available but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (none exist) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or failure scenarios are mentioned.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    -
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Extract structured, schema-typed data from invoices, purchase orders, receipts, and tax forms, and classify documents into custom label sets — via a hosted MCP server. Free tier included.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    -
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to extract structured JSON from invoices and receipts in PDF and image formats using Claude Vision. Supports full document parsing, line item extraction, validation, and batch CSV export with API key or cryptocurrency payment options.
    MIT

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.