Skip to main content
Glama

EU Compliance Tools (pay-per-call, x402)

by io.github.PatrickPi1312

validate_einvoice_eu

Validate an electronic invoice against EN 16931 (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD/Factur-X, Peppol BIS, UBL or CII): detects syntax and profile, checks mandatory fields, the arithmetic consistency of all totals, the VAT breakdown and category rules (reverse charge, intra-Community supply, export). Every finding carries its official business-rule code (BR-..). The result comes with a signed, independently verifiable compliance receipt. Paid tool: $0.10 per invoice via x402 (USDC on Base, Arbitrum, Polygon or Solana).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool checks (mandatory fields, arithmetic consistency, VAT rules), that each finding includes a BR-.. code, that a signed compliance receipt is returned, and that it is a paid tool ($0.10 via x402). This is highly transparent.

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?

The description is reasonably concise and well-structured, with the core purpose first, followed by detailed checks and then pricing. Sentences are information-dense with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose, checks performed, output (compliance receipt), and pricing. While it lacks an explicit return schema, it clearly summarizes the output, and the absence of an output schema makes this sufficient. It does not mention error handling or input limits, but these are not critical for this validation tool.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'xml' parameter, but with a single required parameter named 'xml' and a description about invoice validation, it is obvious the parameter should contain the invoice XML. The description adds domain context but does not directly elaborate on parameter syntax or requirements.

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 a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('an electronic invoice against EN 16931'), listing supported formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_vat or verify_compliance_receipt.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (for validating e-invoices under EN 16931) and includes cost/payment details. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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

All EU Compliance Tools (pay-per-call, x402) 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly separate (validate_vat, validate_iban, token_status, tx_status), but several overlap by combining the same core checks: check_counterparty_eu, must_verify_before_pay, tx_preflight, and invoice_to_pay_dossier_eu all screen sanctions and/or do VIES/IBAN checks. The descriptions help, but the boundaries between a KYB check, a payment gate, and a transaction preflight are subtle enough that agents can easily pick the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, and patterns like validate_*, prepare_*, and *_eu give some predictability. However, the verb style is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led (read_url, screen_sanctions_eu, lookup_company_eu), others are noun-led (market_data, token_status, agentllm_micro), and paid/prepare pairs do not share a consistent naming scheme.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the upper edge of what is reasonable, and the server mixes several unrelated concerns: EU VAT/invoice compliance, sanctions/KYB, US import readiness, AI disclosure/LLM inference, market data, URL reading, and transaction status. The core comply-to-pay workflow is well represented, but the extra domains make the tool list feel heavier and less like a single coherent service.

Completeness3/5

The EU invoice/payment compliance flow is fairly complete: e-invoice validation, VAT rules, VIES, IBAN, sanctions, transaction preflight, payment decisions, bookkeeping statements, and receipt verification are all covered. Obvious gaps remain for such a broadly named server: no export/other product compliance, no broader EU regulatory coverage, and the key invoice guard explicitly does not cover duplicate-ledger detection, internal approval, or delivery checks.

Resources