PeppolStatus

get_country_providers

Read-only

Providers serving a country

The Access Points serving one country, ranked two ways from the hourly rollup: providers by participant (Peppol-ID) count, and providers_by_company by the number of DISTINCT organizations (real businesses) each serves (issue #467). Each row's key is the /v1/aps/{key} handle and share is that provider's fraction of the country's AP-served total for its metric. company_coverage (0..1) is how much ID→organization dedup the market shows — ~0 (and providers_by_company empty) for markets without register enrichment, meaningfully positive for BE/FR. A valid but unknown country returns empty lists. Keyless-cacheable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	Two-letter country code (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2), case-insensitive.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful context: unknown countries return empty lists, company_coverage semantics and empty providers_by_company for unenriched markets, and keyless-cacheability. This enriches the agent's understanding of edge cases and output interpretation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides necessary detail in a compact set of sentences. It includes some technical specifics (issue #467) that may be unnecessary but does not waste words overall.

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?

With a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return fields, ranking logic, and edge cases. It provides enough information for an agent to know what the tool returns and how to interpret it, making it contextually complete.

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 for the single parameter (code) with a clear description. The tool description does not add syntax details but does clarify the country context and behavior for unknown codes, which is marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists access points serving a country with two ranking metrics, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself through country-scoped ranking but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_providers.

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?

The intended use is implied: when you need country-level provider rankings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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

All PeppolStatus 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.

Completeness5/5

For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?