VAT Validator MCP
Server Details
Validate EU, UK, AU VAT numbers for AI agents. EU ViDA e-invoicing compliance.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- OjasKord/vat-validator-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have distinctly different purposes: get_vat_rates retrieves current rates for a jurisdiction, while validate_vat validates a VAT number against live registries. Their descriptions cross-reference each other, making it clear when to use each.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_vat_rates, validate_vat) in snake_case, which is predictable and clear.
Two tools is appropriate for the focused domain of VAT validation and rate checking. While minimal, it covers the essential operations without being under-scoped.
The set covers the core workflow of validating VAT numbers and retrieving rates, which are the critical steps before payment approval. Missing tools like country listing are not strictly necessary.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_vat_ratesAInspect
Retrieves current VAT rates for a jurisdiction. Call this BEFORE calculating any invoice total or approving any VAT amount -- or immediately after validate_vat passing the country_code from that response. Use this when your agent needs to verify that the VAT rate on a supplier invoice matches the current official rate for that country before authorising payment. Returns current standard and reduced VAT rates for the jurisdiction. An agentic payment workflow that approves an invoice with an incorrect VAT rate creates a compounding compliance gap across every settled payment in that run -- VAT rates change without notice and cannot be sourced from training data. If the rate on the invoice differs from the rate returned here, do not approve payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | No | ISO 2-letter code e.g. DE, FR, GB. Omit for all countries. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| rates | No | Present only when country_code is omitted -- full rate table for all supported jurisdictions |
| country | No | |
| reduced | No | Reduced VAT rates as percentages, if any apply |
| standard | No | Standard VAT rate as a percentage |
| checked_at | Yes | |
| source_url | Yes | |
| _disclaimer | No | |
| agent_action | Yes | |
| country_code | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully informs about the tool's behavior: it retrieves current rates, notes they change without notice, and warns about compliance gaps if rates are incorrect. It is clearly a read-only operation.
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?
The description is thorough but slightly verbose with the compliance gap explanation. However, it is well-structured with a logical flow: purpose, usage, return, rationale, warning. Every sentence adds value.
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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, relationship to sibling tool, and critical warning. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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% for the single parameter, and the schema already includes the description. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it is consistent.
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 retrieves current VAT rates for a jurisdiction, specifying the verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'VAT rates'. It distinguishes from sibling tool validate_vat by mentioning its role in the workflow after validation.
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 when to call: before calculating invoice totals or approving VAT amounts, and immediately after validate_vat. Also gives a clear when-not-to-use scenario: if the rate differs from the on-invoice rate, do not approve payment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_vatAInspect
Validates a VAT number against live government registries. Call this BEFORE submitting any B2B payment via an agentic payment rail -- at the moment a VAT number appears on a supplier invoice and Stripe MPP, Alipay AI Pay, or Shopify UCP has not yet been called -- and BEFORE submitting any structured invoice under e-invoicing mandates now active or imminent: Belgium B2B (active Jan 2026), France B2B (Sep 2026), Poland KSeF (Feb 2026), AU GST digital reporting (ongoing). Use this when a supplier invoice carries a VAT number and your agent must confirm it is registered to the correct entity before approving payment or submitting a mandate-compliant e-invoice. Validates against EU VIES (ec.europa.eu, 27 member states) and AU ABR (abr.business.gov.au) live registries. Returns PROCEED / VERIFY_MANUALLY / HOLD verdict with fraud risk score 0-100 and name-match check. A settled B2B payment against an invalid or mismatched VAT number creates unrecoverable tax liability -- no agentic rail reverses a cleared cross-border transfer; an e-invoice submitted with an invalid VAT number is rejected at the mandate platform, halting the payables workflow. Pass the country_code from this response to get_vat_rates. One call, machine-ready verdict, no further analysis needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat_number | Yes | VAT number with country prefix. EU: DE123456789. AU: ABN12345678901. | |
| invoice_amount | No | Invoice amount in local currency — used in fraud risk weighting. | |
| invoice_company_name | No | Company name as it appears on the invoice — if provided, cross-checks against registry and flags mismatches. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| valid | Yes | Whether the VAT number is currently registered and active per the source registry |
| address | No | |
| summary | No | |
| checked_at | Yes | |
| name_match | No | |
| source_url | Yes | |
| vat_number | Yes | |
| _disclaimer | No | |
| agent_action | Yes | Machine-readable verdict |
| company_name | No | |
| jurisdiction | Yes | |
| fraud_signals | No | |
| recommendation | No | |
| fraud_risk_level | No | |
| fraud_risk_score | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: validates against EU VIES and AU ABR live registries, returns PROCEED/VERIFY_MANUALLY/HOLD verdict with fraud risk score 0-100 and name-match check. Explains consequences (unrecoverable tax liability, e-invoice rejection). Asserts one-call machine-ready verdict.
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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then behavioral details, then consequences. Every sentence is informative, but slightly verbose for a high-stakes tool; still earns its place given regulatory and financial risk. No redundancy.
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 the tool's complexity and financial/regulatory risk, the description covers all aspects: purpose, timing, legal mandates, supported registries, return verdicts, risk scoring, name-match, downstream dependency (get_vat_rates), and consequences of misuse. Fully complete with no gaps.
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?
All three parameters are described in the input schema with coverage 100%. Description adds value beyond schema: vat_number examples with country prefixes, invoice_amount used for fraud risk weighting, invoice_company_name cross-checks against registry. Clarifies parameter roles in validation logic.
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 validates VAT numbers against live government registries. Distinguishes from sibling get_vat_rates by specifying to pass country_code to that tool. Specific verb 'validates' and resource 'VAT number' with scope 'live government registries'.
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?
Explicitly states when to call: before B2B payment via agentic rails (Stripe MPP, Alipay AI Pay, Shopify UCP) and before e-invoice submission under specific mandates (Belgium, France, Poland, AU GST). Includes legal context and consequences of not validating. Provides clear alternative: use get_vat_rates after this call.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!