Skip to main content
Glama

PeppolStatus

by com.peppolstatus
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_compliance_stats

Read-only

Network compliance landscape

The free compliance landscape (issue #692): per-country error rates — the share of a country's registered participants that break at least one published Peppol rule — and the per-rule breakdown of every open finding. Counts ONLY: no participant, seat or hostname appears here; the participant-level records are GET /v1/compliance/findings (Network tier). Read from the pre-computed compliance rollup tables and edge-cached. Keyless-cacheable.

Pass country to scope the whole body to one country (issue #716): the same shape, with countries holding that one cell, rules its own breakdown, each rule's share a share of THAT country's open findings, and the code echoed back in country. A country scope is how a structural national pattern is told apart from a real problem — AU and NZ, for example, break not_in_peppol_directory almost everywhere because A-NZ PINT participants are absent from the European Peppol Directory by design.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoScope the landscape to one ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country (or `ZZ`, the bucket for findings whose subject resolves to no country). A country the rollup has not seen returns an empty landscape, not an error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / country
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Scope the landscape to one ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country (or `ZZ`, the bucket for findings whose subject resolves to no country). A country the rollup has not seen returns an empty landscape, not an error.",
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z]{2}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: data is read from pre-computed rollup tables, edge-cached, keyless-cacheable, and contains only aggregate counts with no participant/seat/hostname identifiers. These details help an agent understand latency, freshness, and privacy characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than necessary and contains nonessential noise such as GitHub issue references (#692, #716) and the awkward 'The free compliance landscape' phrasing. However, the core information is front-loaded in the first paragraph, and the country-scope explanation is substantive rather than padding. It is verbose but still scannable.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the returned aggregate shape, the no-identifying-data guarantee, the country-scoping behavior, and the cache/rollup origin. An agent has enough information to decide whether to use this tool, pass a country, and correctly interpret the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already describes the sole parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining how passing country changes the entire response body, that share percentages are relative to that country's open findings, and that the country code is echoed back. The AU/NZ example further clarifies interpretation of scoped results.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it returns the compliance landscape with per-country error rates and per-rule breakdowns. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it returns counts only and that participant-level records are served by GET /v1/compliance/findings (Network tier). The odd phrase 'The free compliance landscape' is a minor distraction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear usage guidance: if an agent needs participant, seat, or hostname records, it must use GET /v1/compliance/findings instead. It also explains when and why to pass the country parameter, including a concrete AU/NZ example to distinguish structural patterns from real problems. This effectively routes agents between this tool and its sibling alternatives.

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

All PeppolStatus toolsInspect
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.

Resources