Validate, generate & convert EU e-invoices (UBL, CII, XRechnung, Factur-X) — EN 16931 pre-validated.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: converting formats, generating invoices, listing supported formats, and validating invoices. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the four tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: convert_invoice, generate_invoice, list_supported_formats, validate_invoice. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of e-invoice handling. Each tool serves a core function (conversion, generation, format listing, validation) without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the primary use cases: conversion between formats, generation from fields, validation, and format discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking explicit support for credit note creation/conversion, but the core workflows are well addressed.
convert_invoiceAConvert an e-invoice between formats via the shared EN 16931 canonical model: parse the source document, re-serialize as the target, and validate the result before returning it — never a document that has not been checked. Format ids: "UBL_2.1" (OASIS UBL, the universal Peppol/EN16931 baseline), "UN_CEFACT_CII" (UN/CEFACT Cross Industry Invoice, required syntax for Chorus Pro/France and many ERP back-ends), "XRechnung_UBL" / "XRechnung_CII" (Germany's mandatory B2G format, XRechnung 3.0 — required for invoicing German public-sector buyers), "Factur-X" (France/Germany hybrid PDF+XML — a human-readable PDF/A-3 with the structured invoice embedded, common for French B2B). Binary formats (Factur-X) are base64 in both directions. Requires an API key on the Pro plan or above for any target beyond plain UBL_2.1 — call list_supported_formats to see current availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target format id, e.g. "UN_CEFACT_CII", "XRechnung_UBL", "XRechnung_CII", or "Factur-X". | |
| from | Yes | Source format id, e.g. "UBL_2.1". | |
| document | Yes | The source document: raw text for XML formats, base64 for binary formats (Factur-X). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: validates before returning, handles binary formats with base64. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true).
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?
Description is fairly long but front-loaded with core action. Each sentence earns its place, though some detail could be condensed. Well-structured with clear sections.
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 complexity (multiple formats, binary, plan restrictions) and no output schema, the description is comprehensive—covers validation, base64, plan requirements, and sibling tool reference.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds significant meaning to the parameters by detailing format IDs, binary handling, and source document format for 'from' parameter.
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 converts invoices between formats via a canonical model. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_invoice, validate_invoice, and list_supported_formats by focusing on conversion.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (conversion between specific format IDs), including plan requirements and suggestion to call list_supported_formats for availability. Implicitly tells when not to use (e.g., if target requires higher plan).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_invoiceAGenerate an EN 16931-conformant UBL 2.1 invoice from structured fields. The result is self-validated before being returned. Provide seller, buyer, and at least one line; for standard-rated (category "S") lines include a vatRate and the seller vatId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer | Yes | ||
| lines | Yes | ||
| seller | Yes | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| payment | No | ||
| currency | Yes | ISO 4217, e.g. EUR. | |
| issueDate | Yes | ISO date, e.g. 2026-06-19. | |
| invoiceNumber | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses self-validation before return, which adds value beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, but no mention of authentication, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancies. Front-loads key standard conformance and self-validation, then adds precise usage guidance.
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?
Covers essential aspects (standard, validation, critical parameters) but omits details on nested objects like seller, buyer, payment, dueDate. With no output schema, description could explain return value structure more.
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?
Schema coverage is low (25%), but description adds critical meaning: mandates seller, buyer, lines, and specific conditions for vatRate and seller vatId on S-category lines. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states it generates an EN 16931-conformant UBL 2.1 invoice. Distinguishes from siblings (convert, validate, list formats) by focusing on creation.
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?
Provides explicit requirements: provide seller, buyer, at least one line, and for 'S' category lines include vatRate and seller vatId. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies usage for generation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_supported_formatsAList the e-invoice formats InvoiceHub validates today and what is on the roadmap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds roadmap context, but no further behavioral traits are disclosed. Adequate given simplicity.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. All information is essential.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only listing, the description fully covers the tool's functionality and roadmap aspect.
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?
No parameters exist. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Baseline of 4 applies as description need not add parameter info.
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 lists supported e-invoice formats and roadmap. Verb 'list' and resource 'formats' are specific. It differentiates from siblings (convert, generate, validate) which are action-oriented.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the purpose is straightforward and sibling names imply their functions, so usage is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_invoiceAValidate an EU e-invoice XML string against the official EN 16931 Schematron. Accepts either syntax — UBL 2.1 (Invoice or CreditNote) or UN/CEFACT CII — and auto-detects which. A document declaring the XRechnung 3.0 CustomizationID is additionally checked against KoSIT's XRechnung delta ruleset. Returns whether it is valid and any failing BR-* / BR-DE-* business rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | Yes | Raw e-invoice XML (UBL 2.1 or UN/CEFACT CII). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses validation standard and output beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
Simple tool; description adequately covers functionality and output without needing output schema.
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?
Schema covers xml parameter fully; description adds minimal value beyond schema's description.
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?
Explicitly states validate action on UBL 2.1 invoice/credit note against EN 16931, distinguishing from siblings (convert, generate, list).
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?
Clear context for validation usage, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
