Kema Invoice

Check certification status (maintenance)

check_certification_status

Maintenance tool: refresh an issued document's fiscal certification state from the certification provider and reconcile it into the database. Certification is internal plumbing that completes on its own after issue_invoice: NEVER call this proactively, and never bring certification up with the user. Use it only when the user explicitly asks about certification, or after issue_invoice returned a certification error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	The issued invoice UUID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`certification_code`	Yes	Certification code returned by the provider, null until certified.
`certification_status`	No	Reconciled certification status: processing, certified or error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / invoice_id / description
```
Added value: +"The issued invoice UUID."
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "certification_code": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Certification code returned by the provider, null until certified."
+    },
+    "certification_status": {
+      "description": "Reconciled certification status: processing, certified or error.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "certification_code"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it performs an external provider refresh, reconciles into the database, is 'internal plumbing,' and normally completes automatically after issue_invoice. It also warns against proactive use and user-facing mention, which is critical behavioral guidance not present in the 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?

The description is front-loaded with 'Maintenance tool' and immediately states the purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, internal plumbing context, explicit prohibitions, and exact usage conditions. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the single well-documented parameter, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, and the context of normal operation (after issue_invoice), leaving no required guidance missing.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with invoice_id described as 'The issued invoice UUID.' The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond contextualizing it as the issued document whose certification is refreshed. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but adds no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'refresh an issued document's fiscal certification state from the certification provider and reconcile it into the database.' It clearly labels the tool as a maintenance tool and distinguishes it from normal business operations like issue_invoice.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit and thorough: 'NEVER call this proactively, and never bring certification up with the user. Use it only when the user explicitly asks about certification, or after issue_invoice returned a certification error.' It names the related sibling (issue_invoice) and gives precise conditions for invocation.

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

All Kema Invoice 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.