RunOnProof

verify_uk_invoice_and_payee

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid x402 UK tool for gb.solution.invoice_payee_verification.v1 (LIMITED). Claims are limited to the named official sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payee`	Yes
`invoice`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-generated key. Send the identical value in the Idempotency-Key header.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`policy`	Yes
`result`	Yes	Offer-specific facts and machine-action inputs; interpret with decision, coverage and limitations.
`payment`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes	Country, population and explicit coverage limitations.
`decision`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Source-scoped evidence references; absence is never a clean finding.
`replayed`	No
`conditions`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`delivery_id`	No
`limitations`	Yes
`valid_as_of`	Yes
`valid_until`	Yes
`execution_id`	No
`reason_codes`	Yes
`authorization`	Yes
`source_health`	Yes
`machine_action`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`economic_activity`	Yes
`product_or_solution`	Yes
`required_information`	Yes

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool is paid and limited to named official sources, which provides useful context about cost and scope. However, it does not elaborate on what claims are made or how limitations affect behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient but lacks substance. It conveys some metadata (paid, version, limited) but is closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complex nested schema and the need for usage context, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the verification workflow, what 'claims' means, or how the tool relates to sibling verification tools.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description contains no parameter information. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description does not clarify any parameters, including nested objects like payee and invoice, leaving the agent without additional guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lacks a clear statement of what the tool does. It references a solution identifier and mentions limitations, but does not explicitly say it verifies UK invoices and payees. The name implies it, but the description itself is vague.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling verification tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.

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

All RunOnProof tools Inspect

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

C2.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools appear to address the same action with only country or payment-model differences, such as company_check/run_uk_company_check, approve_supplier/approve_uk_supplier, authorize_payment/run_uk_payment_authorization, and screen_restricted_party/screen_restricted_business_party. Even with descriptions, an agent will struggle to pick the intended tool reliably.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare global verbs (company_check, approve_supplier, authorize_payment) with UK-prefixed variants (run_uk_company_check, approve_uk_supplier, authorize_uk_business_payment), plus free-form names like counterfactual, preflight, quote, and capabilities. There is no single consistent verb_noun or country-modifier convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

46 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface, and the set carries heavy duplication through global/UK/free/paid variants. While the domain may justify multiple country-specific operations, the tool count itself will overwhelm agents and make selection harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main compliance lifecycle well: discovery (capabilities, preflight, quote, resolve_agent_intent), verification, supplier approval, payment authorization, invoice matching, passport issuance/refresh, and verification receipts. Minor gaps exist around explicit cancellation/revocation or list/search operations, but core workflows have no major dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?