PeppolStatus

list_public_providers

Read-only

List public provider profiles

The FREE, crawlable public subset for each curated provider, busiest first: identity + role flags, the seat-directory columns (legal entity, commercial name, website, infra provider, hosting), mapped hostnames, participant count, roster country mix, the 30d/90d uptime headline, a cert-health summary and an as_of freshness stamp. Reachable with no API key. limit clamps to [1, 500] (default 100). Not paginated (the envelope's next_cursor is always null).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of providers to return, clamped to [1, 500]. Defaults to 100.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses several behavioral traits: results are 'busiest first', 'Not paginated' with next_cursor always null, limit clamping to [1,500], and the 'as_of' freshness stamp. It also reveals access requirements ('no API key').

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 dense but efficient; the opening phrase identifies the tool, followed by a structured list of returned fields and two key behavioral notes. No wasted words.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough enumeration of the returned fields, ordering, pagination, and authentication requirement, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 fully describes the single limit parameter (default, min, max), so schema coverage is 100%. The description restates the clamp behavior but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline score.

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 opens with 'List public provider profiles', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling list_providers by emphasizing 'FREE, crawlable public subset' and 'Reachable with no API key', making clear this is the unauthenticated public variant.

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?

It provides clear context that this is for public, crawlable data without an API key, implying use when no auth is desired. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_providers or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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?