PeppolStatus

list_id_quality_malformed

Read-only

List malformed participant identifiers

The individual identifiers that failed their scheme's structural rule, keyset-paginated on (scheme, value). The first page's meta.facets gives scheme and reason counts over the filtered set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Case-insensitive substring match on the identifier value.
`smp`	No	Filter to malformed ids homed on one SMP hostname (from `meta.facets.smp`).
`limit`	No	Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50.
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page.
`reason`	No	Filter by the kind of structural failure.
`scheme`	No	Filter to one Peppol ICD scheme (e.g. `0208`).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by mentioning keyset-pagination on (scheme, value) and the presence of meta.facets on the first page. This goes beyond the annotation without over-explaining.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids repetition of schema details and focuses on non-obvious behavior.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the pagination approach and the meta.facets structure, which is useful. It doesn't detail the exact fields of each malformed identifier, but the phrase 'individual identifiers' gives a reasonable hint. Overall, it's complete enough for a list/filter tool with well-documented 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 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but it implicitly relates cursor and limit to the pagination strategy, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists malformed participant identifiers, defines what those are ('identifiers that failed their scheme's structural rule'), and distinguishes it by introducing the pagination and facets. The verb 'list' and resource are specific, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_id_quality.

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 provides clear context for use: it's for viewing malformed identifiers, with keyset pagination and facet counts for analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer appropriate use cases.

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?