Factur-X: Generate & Validate E-Invoices

Get an invoice or credit-note example

get_invoice_example

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a complete invoice or credit-note example to edit and pass to generate_invoice.

Use this first, instead of inventing fields. No API key is required, and the call does not count
as a document. The seller and buyer are sample data: replace them, the number, the dates and the
lines before you generate. For credit_note, also replace preceding_invoices with the original invoice reference.
To credit a real invoice already in hand, use draft_credit_note instead of this synthetic example.
Amounts are positive decimal strings. Nothing is stored, and no file
is created. Returns the invoice plus the profile and check to pass to generate_invoice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	No	en16931 (default) or extended-ctc-fr. The body is the same. extended-ctc-fr sets party_check so generate_invoice asks EU Verify before emitting a file.	en16931
`document_type`	No	invoice (default): type 380; credit_note: type 381 with a sample original-invoice reference.	invoice

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / document_type

Added value: +{
+  "default": "invoice",
+  "description": "invoice (default): type 380; credit_note: type 381 with a sample original-invoice reference.",
+  "enum": [
+    "invoice",
+    "credit_note"
+  ],
+  "title": "Document Type",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description adds substantive context: no API key required, the call does not count as a document, nothing is stored, no file is created, and the returned data is synthetic sample data that must be replaced before generating. It even flags the credit_note-specific preceding_invoices substitution.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by usage, caveats, and substitution guidance. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction, though the block runs slightly long and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description nonetheless notes it returns the invoice plus profile and check. Combined with full parameter coverage and clear routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the enum meanings for profile and document_type are already fully documented. The description adds only the credit_note/preceding_invoices substitution hint and the positive-decimal-amount convention, which is marginal value over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return a complete invoice or credit-note example.' It names its downstream consumer (generate_invoice) and its alternative (draft_credit_note), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like generate_invoice and view_invoice_demo without opening a 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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this first, instead of inventing fields' and 'To credit a real invoice already in hand, use draft_credit_note instead of this synthetic example.' It states both when to use it and the condition that selects the alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Factur-X: Generate & Validate E-Invoices tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?