validate_invoiceValidate against XSD and EN 16931 schematron. Returns valid flag, detected profile and findings with rule ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | No | CII or UBL XML as text (alternative to document_base64) | |
| check | No | EN 16931 base rules or + French CTC rules (default) | fr-ctc |
| document_base64 | No | Factur-X PDF or XML file, base64 encoded |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no side-effect warning is needed. The description adds the standards checked and the return shape (valid flag, profile, findings with rule ids), which enriches the call context without contradicting the annotations.
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 compact sentences with the core verb and standards front-loaded, followed by a sparse return-value sentence. No filler or repetition of already-documented schema details.
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?
For a read-only validation tool with full parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description gives the essential behavioral contract. The default check (fr-ctc) and input formats are covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning; the alternatives (xml vs document_base64) and the check enun are already fully documented in 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?
States a specific action (validate) against well-defined standards (XSD, EN 16931 schematron) and names key outputs (valid flag, detected profile, findings with rule ids). Sibling tools have distinct verbs (embed, extract, generate), so differentiation is immediate.
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 alternative routing is provided. The description only implies that validation is the intended use case, leaving the agent to infer when to choose it over embed, extract, or generate. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.
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 stage of the Factur-X lifecycle: creation, validation, embedding into PDF, and extraction. There is no meaningful overlap between generate, validate, embed, and extract operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: embed_xml, extract_invoice, generate_invoice, validate_invoice. The pattern is predictable and immediately conveys the action and object.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for this domain, covering the essential operations without redundancy. Each tool earns its place in the set.
The toolkit covers the full core workflow: generate a compliant invoice, validate it, embed the XML in a PDF/A-3 document, and extract previously embedded data. No obvious lifecycle gaps exist for the stated purpose.