Jithox E-Invoice Readiness

Look up a Peppol participant

lookup_peppol_participant

Read-only

Check whether a receiver is registered on the Peppol network and accepts BIS Billing 3.0 invoices, via the official SML/SMP discovery route when enabled (otherwise an honest mock that says so). Only status registered/not_registered is definitive; unavailable/not_configured are truthful and never a hidden "no". Provide vatId or endpointId (at least one) plus the receiver country. Lookup only — never a send action, and no send tool exists here. Validation and readiness only; never sends a Peppol invoice and gives no legal, fiscal or compliance guarantee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vatId`	No	VAT / enterprise number, e.g. "BE0123456749".
`endpointId`	No	Peppol endpoint identifier (GLN or scheme-specific id).
`countryCode`	Yes	Receiver country (drives the scheme derivation).
`endpointScheme`	No	EAS scheme id. Derived when omitted (BE VAT → 0208, else 0088).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`decision`	Yes
`retryable`	Yes
`capability`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`generatedAt`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`receiptEnvelope`	No
`decisionCategory`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: explains SML/SMP discovery route with fallback to honest mock, clarifies response semantics (status types and interpretation), and reaffirms read-only nature. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that front-load the core action and purpose. Every phrase adds value; no fluff. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given parameter count (4), required fields (1), and presence of output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics. Agent has sufficient context to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and description adds critical usage context: requires at least one of vatId/endpointId plus countryCode, explains endpointScheme derivation. This adds meaning beyond raw schema.

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 checks Peppol registration and BIS Billing 3.0 acceptance, with specific scope (validation only, never sends). It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it is a lookup-only tool with no send action.

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?

The description specifies when to use (to check registration/readiness) and what results mean (definitive vs. truthful non-definitive statuses). It also states limitations (no send, no legal guarantee), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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

All Jithox E-Invoice Readiness tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: readiness snapshot, participant lookup, invoice validation, VAT number validation, and VIES check. No overlap or ambiguity exists.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_einvoice_readiness, validate_invoice), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its validation and readiness focus. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all necessary validation aspects: readiness overview, participant lookup, structural invoice validation, VAT format checks, and live VIES status. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?