parse_fatturapaEstrae dati strutturati (cedente, cessionario, righe, imposte) da un XML FatturaPA/SDI. Solo parsing deterministico — nessuna verifica VIES. Gratis (€0), deterministico, nessun login richiesto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml_content | Yes | Il contenuto XML della fattura elettronica (FatturaPA/SDI). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: deterministic, free, no login required. This goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and outputs, then additional differentiators and constraints. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, constraints, and cost/auth. It misses potential error cases or return format, but given context, it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for xml_content. The description reinforces that the parameter is the XML content but adds no additional format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it extracts structured data (cedente, cessionario, righe, imposte) from FatturaPA/SDI XML. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool parse_verify_fatturapa by noting 'no VIES verification', making the tool's purpose and boundaries unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies when to use this tool (deterministic parsing only) and explicitly contrasts with VIES verification, guiding the agent away from using it for verification tasks. It also mentions cost and auth constraints (free, no login). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' for other scenarios but sufficient for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, targeting specific tax/compliance operations. The pair 'parse_fatturapa' and 'parse_verify_fatturapa' are similar but differentiated by the verification step. The detailed descriptions further reduce ambiguity.
Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with prefixes like 'calc_', 'validate_', 'lookup_', 'parse_', 'nis2_', etc. Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'compose_f24' vs 'calc_forfettario', 'intrastat_compose' vs 'intrastat_periodicity') but overall the pattern is clear.
With 23 tools, the set is on the heavier side for a single server, covering many subdomains of Italian tax and compliance. While each tool seems purposeful, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3-15), making it slightly overwhelming.
The tool surface covers a wide array of Italian tax and compliance needs: tax calculations, F24 composition, INTRASTAT, ATECO, NIS2, FatturaPA, and validations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no IRPEF or IRAP calculators), but the core tax workflows are well supported.