A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceValidates electronic invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD, Factur-X, Peppol BIS, etc.) against authority-pinned rules and explains failures.
2
25
MIT
Fakturai — German E-Invoice (ZUGFeRD / Factur-X / E-Rechnung)
by de.fakturai
Server Details
KoSIT-verified German e-invoices: generate & validate ZUGFeRD, Factur-X, XRechnung, EN 16931.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: health check, invoice generation, and invoice validation. No overlap in functionality or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a lowercase snake_case pattern, but 'compliance_status' is a noun phrase while the other two use verb_noun structure. Slight inconsistency but still predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well-scoped for the focused domain of German e-invoice generation and validation. Neither too few nor excessive.
Completeness5/5
Covers the full workflow: readiness check, invoice creation with verification, and validation of existing invoices. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolscompliance_statusAInspect
Check the e-rechnung engine health: KoSIT + Mustang daemon status and dependency version pins vs. latest releases. Use before bulk invoice generation to confirm the compliance gate is fully operational.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what is checked (health, status, version pins vs. latest) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects. Adding 'read-only' would improve transparency.
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?
Two sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage context. No redundant words, perfectly front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. Tool is simple with no parameters, and usage context is sufficient. Could mention that it does not modify state, but overall complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 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 checks e-rechnung engine health, specifically KoSIT + Mustang daemon status and dependency version pins. It distinguishes from sibling tools generate_einvoice and validate_einvoice by being a pre-check operation.
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?
Explicitly advises use before bulk invoice generation to confirm compliance gate is operational. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear given siblings. A score of 4 reflects good guidance without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_einvoiceAInspect
Generate a KoSIT-verified ZUGFeRD/Factur-X German e-invoice (EN 16931 / E-Rechnung). Returns pdf_b64 (base64 PDF), invoice_number, and the full validation_report. Every invoice returned has passed the official German government KoSIT acceptance gate — the same gate used by federal agencies for B2G submissions. Keywords: ZUGFeRD, Factur-X, E-Rechnung erstellen, Rechnung PDF, German invoice.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_json | Yes | ||
| seller_profile | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the output format and the important behavioral fact that every invoice has passed the KoSIT acceptance gate. It does not detail permissions, side effects, or rate limits, but covers the key behavioral promise.
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 a single, well-structured paragraph with the main function, output, verification guarantee, and keywords. It is concise with no filler, though a clearer separation of sections could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain the critical input parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about how to construct invoice_json and seller_profile. For a complex tool generating regulated documents, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two opaque object parameters (invoice_json, seller_profile). The agent has no guidance on required fields, structure, or examples for these inputs.
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 it generates a KoSIT-verified ZUGFeRD/Factur-X German e-invoice, specifies output fields (pdf_b64, invoice_number, validation_report), and distinguishes from siblings like validate_einvoice by emphasizing the generation and verification aspect.
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 implies usage for generating a verified German e-invoice, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_einvoice or compliance_status. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_einvoiceAInspect
Validate an existing ZUGFeRD/Factur-X/E-Rechnung invoice. Accepts a base64-encoded PDF or raw CII XML. Runs the full three-validator check: PDF/A conformance, EN 16931 Schematron, and the official German KoSIT acceptance gate. No authentication required. Keywords: E-Rechnung prüfen, ZUGFeRD validieren, Factur-X check, Rechnung compliance.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| content_format | No | pdf_b64 |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses input formats and the three validation steps. No contradictions. Could mention output format, but output schema exists. Good transparency for a read-only validation tool.
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?
Four concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, input format, validation details, and authentication status. No wasted words.
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 the tool's complexity (2 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description covers input, validation behavior, and authentication. Output schema exists so return values are not needed. Could mention error handling, but overall complete.
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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates by explaining the 'content' parameter accepts base64-encoded PDF or raw CII XML and mentions default format. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
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?
Description clearly states the tool validates existing ZUGFeRD/Factur-X/E-Rechnung invoices, listing specific formats (PDF, CII XML) and validation checks (PDF/A, EN 16931, KoSIT). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_status and generate_einvoice.
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?
Explicitly states 'No authentication required' and implies usage for validating existing invoices. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the verb 'validate' clearly differentiates from generation or status checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for DACH e-invoicing. Create XRechnung (UBL) and ZUGFeRD 2.3 (Factur-X CII) invoices, validate against EN 16931 rules, extract data from XML, and convert between UBL, CII and JSON formats.6392MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for German Electronic Invoicing (ZUGFeRD 2.x / XRechnung 3.x). Provides tools to validate, generate, parse, and convert invoices compliant with EN 16931 and KoSIT.81Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for German e-invoice compliance (XRechnung 3.0 & ZUGFeRD 2.x) enabling AI agents to validate, generate, parse, and check compliance of electronic invoices per EN 16931.61MIT