Invoiceer e-invoicing tools

Validate an e-invoice

validate_einvoice

Read-only

Validate an e-invoice (XRechnung UBL/CII, ZUGFeRD / Factur-X PDF, Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, EN 16931) with the official KoSIT validator. Returns valid/invalid, the detected format, every error and warning with its rule code, and the exact corrected value for common calculation errors. Pass the XML as text in xml, or a PDF/XML file base64-encoded in file_base64. Max 5 MB.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_einvoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`xml`	No	The invoice XML (UBL or CII) as text.
`france`	No	Also check the French rules (BR-FR, XP Z12-012), reported as a separate `france` block. Automatic when the seller country is FR.
`file_base64`	No	Alternative: the file (ZUGFeRD/Factur-X PDF or XML), base64-encoded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / france

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also check the French rules (BR-FR, XP Z12-012), reported as a separate `france` block. Automatic when the seller country is FR.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it names the external validator used, lists what the response contains (valid/invalid, detected format, per-rule errors/warnings, corrected values), and states the 5 MB size limit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences: purpose and supported formats first, return payload second, input channel and size limit last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing the result fields. It is only slightly short on operational detail — e.g., whether validation is remote/network-dependent or how long a 5 MB PDF check takes — but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by framing `xml` and `file_base64` as mutually exclusive alternatives and adding the 5 MB cap, which the schema does not state; the `france` behavior is already fully described in the schema.

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 (validate) and resource (e-invoice) and enumerates the exact supported standards (XRechnung UBL/CII, ZUGFeRD/Factur-X, Peppol BIS 3.0, EN 16931) plus the validator engine (KoSIT). No sibling verb is remotely similar (create_einvoice, explain_rule), so the agent can route correctly 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It does explain the two input channels — XML as text in `xml`, or a PDF/XML base64-encoded in `file_base64` — which is real selection guidance. But it never says when to prefer this over siblings like explain_rule (for interpreting returned rule codes) or check_leitweg_id, nor any when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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

All Invoiceer e-invoicing tools 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?