InkVoice — XRechnung & E-Invoicing

Create a ZUGFeRD / Factur-X invoice

create_zugferd

Read-only

Builds a ZUGFeRD 2.x / Factur-X hybrid invoice from the same details create_xrechnung takes, and returns it as a PDF file.

A hybrid is one invoice stated twice in one file: a PDF/A-3 document a person reads, carrying the same invoice inside it as EN 16931 XML a machine books. This is the format private-sector German B2B buyers generally want, where XRechnung is what public bodies require. If the recipient is a public authority and gave you a Leitweg-ID, you want create_xrechnung instead.

The embedded XML declares plain EN 16931 — the profile ZUGFeRD calls COMFORT — not the XRechnung CIUS, because that CIUS is a statement about public-sector procurement.

Validation is identical to create_xrechnung, except that the IBAN is optional here (EN 16931 makes BG-16 optional): the same EN 16931 rules are applied before anything is built, and a rejected call names the rules and business terms that failed.

What this does NOT do:

The result is a binary PDF returned as an attachment. It is not text and there is nothing useful to read in it — do not try to quote or summarise its contents. Offer it to the user as a file.
It does not validate against veraPDF or the Mustangproject validator. The document is built to be valid PDF/A-3 with the required Factur-X metadata, but that is our reading rather than a validator's verdict.
It handles ONE tax rate and one tax category for the whole invoice, exactly as create_xrechnung does.
It does not send the invoice anywhere, and there is no Peppol.
There is no logo and no custom styling. The PDF uses the default invoice layout.

Nothing is stored: no account, no invoice record, no retained personal data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice`	Yes	The invoice to turn into a ZUGFeRD / Factur-X document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / invoice / properties / deliveryDate

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "format": "date",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

AddedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: validation rules run before building, IBAN is optional because BG-16 is optional, rejections name the failing rules/business terms, one tax rate and category per invoice, no Peppol/sending, no logo or styling, and nothing is persisted. It also warns that the output is opaque binary and must be offered as a file rather than quoted. The 'nothing stored' statement is consistent with readOnlyHint=true despite the 'create_' name.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose and format first, then the routing rule, then the explicit 'What this does NOT do' list. It is long, and the PDF/A-3-vs-EN-16931 explainer paragraph is more context than strictly necessary, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden, explaining that the result is a binary PDF attachment with nothing readable inside. Combined with validation behavior, restrictions, and the no-storage guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call and present this tool correctly.

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?

With a single wrapper parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic deltas: the payload takes 'the same details create_xrechnung takes', the IBAN is optional here (unlike XRechnung), and the invoice is constrained to one tax rate/category. It does not explain taxCategoryCode or currency formats, which remains a minor gap.

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 ('Builds') and a precise resource ('ZUGFeRD 2.x / Factur-X hybrid invoice') and adds the concrete output form ('returns it as a PDF file'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_xrechnung, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: private-sector German B2B buyers want this, while a public authority that supplied a Leitweg-ID means 'you want create_xrechnung instead'. Both the when and the when-not are stated, with the selecting condition named.

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

All InkVoice — XRechnung & E-Invoicing 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?