ToolForte

generate_upa_files

Generate UPA pension declaration XML (the Dutch payroll-to-pension-fund message) for one or more periods, with employments, schemes and optional deliberate defects that a receiving system should reject. Deterministic per seed. XML is large, so ask for the summary format unless you need the file contents; for bulk use the REST API at https://toolforte.com/api/v1/tools/upa-file-generator

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seed`	No
`count`	No	Employments to generate.
`format`	No	summary returns file names and warnings only, which is usually what you want. xml returns full file contents and can be very large.	summary
`months`	No
`defects`	No	Switch on deliberate defects to test rejection paths. Valid ids: invalidBsn, duplicateBsn, duplicateNumIv, totalsMismatch, endBeforeStart, dateOutsidePeriod, unknownRegVrnt, negativeAmount, zeroNormHours, missingMandatory
`startYear`	No
`schemeType`	No
`startMonth`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses determinism per seed, the large size of XML output, and the recommended summary format. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a file generator this is reasonable coverage.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, with the core purpose first followed by essential caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers output-size trade-offs and points to an external alternative, which is valuable for a complex tool. However, it does not mention the participants-csv format or clarify the relationship between months, startMonth, and startYear. Still, with schema support, an agent can invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is low (38%), but the description compensates by tying parameters to functional concepts: periods, employments, schemes, deliberate defects, and deterministic seeds. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, even if individual parameters like startMonth and schemeType are not explicitly detailed.

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: 'Generate UPA pension declaration XML', with a clear domain context ('the Dutch payroll-to-pension-fund message'). It is unmistakably distinct from all sibling tools, which are general-purpose utilities.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the summary format versus full XML, and directs bulk use to the REST API. This is actionable and leaves little to inference.

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

All ToolForte 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some pairs could be confused: html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf both produce PDFs, read_page vs url_screenshot both fetch a URL, and generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data both generate Dutch test data. Detailed descriptions mitigate most ambiguity, so agents can usually select correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with predictable verb_noun patterns (e.g., generate_*, validate_*, memory_*, url_*). The naming is uniform and makes each tool's function easily inferable from its name.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a heavy surface for any MCP server, even a general-purpose toolbox. The large number of niche Dutch-specific tools (BRP, UPA, BSN, holidays) may overwhelm agents and increase selection complexity. The server could benefit from splitting into smaller, focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of utilities, but there are notable gaps: no hash generation, no json_to_csv counterpart, and the workflow sub-domain only offers list/run without create/delete. Core utilities are present, but some obvious counterparts and lifecycle operations are missing.

Resources

Need Help?