Jithox

Check Peppol invoice readiness

check_peppol_ready

Read-only

Check your own invoice against 21 published Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 rules, and whether the customer's Peppol address is registered; each finding names the rule and the fix. A listed subset, not the official validator. Free, no token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lines`	No
`currency`	No	Three-letter currency code (BT-5), e.g. EUR.
`customer`	No	The customer, the receiver.
`supplier`	No	You, the sender.
`totalVat`	No	Total VAT (BT-110).
`issueDate`	No	The issue date (BT-2).
`totalWithVat`	No	Invoice total including VAT (BT-112).
`invoiceNumber`	No	The invoice number (BT-1).
`buyerReference`	No	The reference the customer asked you to put on the invoice (BT-10). Peppol requires this OR an order reference.
`orderReference`	No	The purchase order number (BT-13).
`documentCharges`	No	Charges on the WHOLE invoice, e.g. freight (BG-21).
`totalWithoutVat`	No	Invoice total excluding VAT (BT-109).
`documentAllowances`	No	Discounts on the WHOLE invoice, not on one line (BG-20).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`kind`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / customer / properties / endpointId / description

Previous value: -"The party's Peppol address — the identifier the network delivers to, e.g. a Belgian enterprise number."New value: +"The customer's literal UBL EndpointID value, e.g. \"0403170701\": from lookup_peppol_participant copy data.endpointId here, NEVER its whole participantId when endpointScheme is set. Checked as written, NEVER rewritten: another spelling is another address."

changedInput schema / properties / customer / properties / endpointScheme / description

Previous value: -"The four-digit EAS code the address is stated under, e.g. \"0208\" for a Belgian enterprise number."New value: +"The four-digit EAS code the address is stated under, e.g. \"0208\" for a Belgian enterprise number: from lookup_peppol_participant copy data.endpointScheme here."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / documentAllowances

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Discounts on the WHOLE invoice, not on one line (BG-20).",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "amount": {
+        "description": "The amount, excluding VAT (BT-92 for an allowance, BT-99 for a charge).",
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "reason": {
+        "description": "Why, e.g. \"Discount\" or \"Freight\".",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "vatPercent": {
+        "description": "The VAT rate it is taxed at, e.g. 21 (BT-96 / BT-103).",
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / documentCharges

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Charges on the WHOLE invoice, e.g. freight (BG-21).",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "amount": {
+        "description": "The amount, excluding VAT (BT-92 for an allowance, BT-99 for a charge).",
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "reason": {
+        "description": "Why, e.g. \"Discount\" or \"Freight\".",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "vatPercent": {
+        "description": "The VAT rate it is taxed at, e.g. 21 (BT-96 / BT-103).",
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed16 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / buyerReference / maxLength
```
Removed value: -200
```
- removedInput schema / properties / customer / properties / endpointId / maxLength
```
Removed value: -60
```
- removedInput schema / properties / customer / properties / name / description
```
Removed value: -"The party's name as it appears on the invoice."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / customer / properties / name / maxLength
```
Removed value: -200
```
- removedInput schema / properties / invoiceNumber / maxLength
```
Removed value: -120
```
- changedInput schema / properties / issueDate / description
```
Previous value: -"The issue date (BT-2). Peppol requires YYYY-MM-DD."New value: +"The issue date (BT-2)."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / lines / description
```
Removed value: -"The invoice lines."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / lines / items / properties / description / maxLength
```
Removed value: -400
```
- changedInput schema / properties / orderReference / description
```
Previous value: -"The purchase order number (BT-13). The alternative to a buyer reference."New value: +"The purchase order number (BT-13)."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / orderReference / maxLength
```
Removed value: -200
```
- removedInput schema / properties / supplier / properties / endpointId / maxLength
```
Removed value: -60
```
- removedInput schema / properties / supplier / properties / name / description
```
Removed value: -"The party's name as it appears on the invoice."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / supplier / properties / name / maxLength
```
Removed value: -200
```
- changedInput schema / properties / totalWithoutVat / description
```
Previous value: -"Invoice total excluding VAT (BT-109). Supply it and the arithmetic rules are checked."New value: +"Invoice total excluding VAT (BT-109)."
```
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "kind",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), so credit goes to what the text adds: the check covers only a listed subset ('not the official validator'), each finding names rule and fix, and it is 'Free, no token' — a cost/latency signal not derivable from annotations or schema. It does not disclose rate limits or partial-failure behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and immediately qualified by its validation limit. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 13-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, coverage bounds, and cost, and the output schema handles return format. The remaining gap is workflow context — that a Peppol address should be resolved via lookup_peppol_participant before calling this — which is only hinted at inside the schema.

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 92%, so the schema already carries per-field meaning (BT references, EAS codes, endpointId usage rules). The description contributes nothing field-specific, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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) against a named, bounded standard (21 published Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 rules) plus a second concrete action (customer's Peppol address registration). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling lookup_peppol_participant, which only resolves a participant, and from review_invoice/check_vat_list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is a pre-send readiness check on 'your own invoice'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing versus siblings such as review_invoice, and no stated prerequisite (e.g. run lookup_peppol_participant first) in the description itself.

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

All Jithox tools Inspect

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.