Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Prepare French e-invoicing recipient

prepare_french_einvoicing_recipient
Read-only

Use when you need to PREPARE a compliant French e-invoice for a company (invoice header, VAT number, addressing) rather than decide whether paying it is safe — for the full verify-the-supplier-before-payment verdict, IBAN included, call prepare_french_invoice_file. The French e-invoicing mandate applies from 1 September 2026: receiving becomes obligatory for every VAT-liable company on that date, issuing is phased (large and mid-sized companies 1 September 2026, SMEs and micro-enterprises 1 September 2027; art. 91 of the 2024 Finance Act). Returns legal name & form, active/ceased status, computed intra-EU VAT number (+ VIES-check pointer), establishments (SIRET) with addresses, NAF code and indicative send/receive obligation dates from the INSEE size category. The response is Ed25519-signed and carries provenance[] — one entry per block served, with the official register, its licence and its as_of date — so the preparation is auditable offline. Preparation only — Sirenic is not an accredited platform (PDP), does not access the central directory and never issues, transmits or routes invoices, nor confirms PPF/PDP registration. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sirenYes9-digit SIREN of the company to be invoiced (digits only, no spaces); use search_french_companies first if you only have a name
api_keyNoOptional Sirenic API key (srn_live_…) to pay with prepaid credits instead of x402 — no wallet needed. Get one at https://api.sirenic.eu/compte. Ignored when x_payment is provided (the signed payment wins). On insufficient balance the tool returns a credits error, not an x402 quote.
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoHow to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
quoteNoThe signable x402 payment requirements when payment_required is true: {x402Version, accepts[]} where each entry carries scheme, network, amount, asset and payTo (USDC and EURC options at the same numeric amount). Sign one entry and call again with `x_payment`.
resultatNoThe endpoint's JSON response when payment_required is false. Paid responses carry `source`, `disclaimer` and an Ed25519 signature; KYB, batch KYB, sanctions, intelligence and the five invoicing tools (prepare_french_invoice_file, prepare_european_invoice_file, prepare_french_einvoicing_recipient, verify_iban_bank, validate_eu_vat_number) also carry a `provenance` array — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means). Codes are documented at GET /v1/provenance/registres (free).
payment_requiredYesTrue when this response is an x402 payment quote instead of data: settle one of the quote's `accepts` options and call the tool again with `x_payment`.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It discloses preparation-only scope, that Sirenic is not an accredited PDP, no central directory access, never issues/transmits/routes invoices, nor confirms PPF/PDP registration. It also states the response is Ed25519-signed with provenance for offline auditability and notes the $0.02 x402 fee. All of this is valuable context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: primary purpose, boundary with the alternative, regulatory dates, return contents, signature/provenance, platform limitations, and payment. The key usage distinction is front-loaded and the rest flows logically. No filler or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and explains return structures, the description need not detail every field. It still covers the regulatory context (mandate dates from the 2024 Finance Act), the return highlights (legal name, VAT number, VIES pointer, SIRETs, NAF, obligation dates), the auditability guarantee, platform limitations, and the payment mechanism. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (siren, api_key, x_payment). The description adds some contextual color (the purpose of the SIREN, the alternative API-key payment path, the behavior of insufficient balance), but it does not materially extend or clarify the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('PREPARE'), resource ('compliant French e-invoice for a company'), and scope ('invoice header, VAT number, addressing'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_french_invoice_file by naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you need to PREPARE a compliant French e-invoice') and an explicit when-not-to-use condition ('rather than decide whether paying it is safe'), naming the alternative tool for that case. Also adds the regulatory timeline and payment method, which are decision-relevant. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Sirenic toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation2/5

Several French company bundles overlap in purpose (get_french_company_file, get_french_company_kyb_file, get_french_company_intelligence, get_french_company_health_summary) and procurement/competitor tools overlap (get_french_company_public_procurement, get_eu_procurement_awards, get_company_procurement_competitors). Although descriptions try to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool when looking for a company overview or procurement history.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/search_ + country + entity pattern, e.g. get_french_company_profile, list_danish_company_filings, so navigation is predictable. Deviations like check_french_regulator_alerts, suggest_company_names, verify_iban_bank, and the prepare_* verbs are understandable but break the strict verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

77 tools is excessive for a single server regardless of how broad the domain is; the calibration treats 50+ as an extreme mismatch. While France is well covered and several countries appear, much of the surface is micro-endpoints (list_/get_ filing pairs per country) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

France coverage is impressively complete (identity, financials, legal events, procurement, IP, risk, surveillance, invoicing), and the surveillance lifecycle has create/get/renew/stop. But European coverage is inconsistent: Germany has only insider transactions, Spain only acts, and several major jurisdictions lack accounts/officers/insolvency; an agent expecting 'European company due diligence' will hit dead ends.

Resources