Validiert eine E-Rechnung (ZUGFeRD/Factur-X PDF oder XRechnung XML) gegen EN 16931 und gibt strukturierte Ergebnisse mit Korrekturvorschlägen zurück.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Erwartetes Profil (optional, wird automatisch erkannt) | |
| file_type | Yes | 'pdf' für ZUGFeRD/Factur-X, 'xml' für XRechnung | |
| file_content | Yes | Base64-kodierter Inhalt der PDF- oder XML-Datei |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates against EN 16931 and returns structured results with correction suggestions, conveying the core behavior and output format. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes important details. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: input types, validation standard, and output nature. It does not detail the result structure, but 'structured results with correction suggestions' gives a sufficient high-level picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. It does mention file types and standards which relate to parameters, but this does not go beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates e-invoices (ZUGFeRD/Factur-X PDF or XRechnung XML) against EN 16931 and returns structured results with correction suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('Validiert') and a distinct resource, differentiating it from siblings like 'check_consistency' and 'extract_xml'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the tool is for validating e-invoices against a specific standard, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct workflow step: creating an invoice, validating it, extracting embedded XML, checking PDF/XML consistency, and generating a validation report. Even though check_consistency and validate_invoice both inspect invoices, their inputs and purposes are clearly separated.
Four of the five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: check_consistency, create_invoice, extract_xml, validate_invoice. validation_report is the only outlier, using a noun phrase instead of an action-oriented verb_noun name.
Five tools is well-scoped for an e-invoice creation and validation server. Each tool contributes a meaningful, non-redundant capability, and the count matches the domain without feeling thin or overloaded.
The server covers the core invoice workflow: creation, validation, extraction, consistency checking, and reporting. Since the service is stateless, traditional CRUD update/delete tools are not expected, so there are no significant gaps.
