list_supported_formats
Read-onlyIdempotent
List the e-invoice formats InvoiceHub validates today and what is on the roadmap.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
invoicehub
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct operation—generate creates, validate checks, convert transforms, and list_supported_formats provides metadata—with no functional overlap. The descriptions make the boundaries between tools crystal clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_invoice, generate_invoice, list_supported_formats, validate_invoice), with the object being the domain concept. This makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to e-invoice processing—each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated. It is an ideal size for the utility's purpose.
Completeness5/5
The set covers the core workflow: generating invoices, validating them, converting between formats, and discovering supported formats. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain; users can perform all essential operations.