Submit an invoice to the ANAF SPV portal (e-Factura UBL) using the e-Factura properties already stored on the invoice (invoice_type_code, vat_type, payment_method, document_position_units). Returns the resulting EfacturaTransaction JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes | Invoice ID to submit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that e-Factura properties are read from the stored invoice rather than supplied as parameters, and that a transaction JSON is returned, but it says nothing about ANAF credentials/authorization, whether a submission is irreversible, how failures or rejections surface, or whether the call is async and requires status polling.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target system, then the data source and return value. No filler.
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?
The return value is named (EfacturaTransaction JSON) even without an output schema, which is helpful. However, for a write operation against an external government portal with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out auth requirements, failure modes, and any follow-up flow (status refresh), so it is only adequate.
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?
Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds modest value by explaining that invoice_id selects an invoice whose stored e-Factura properties drive the submission, but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: submits an invoice to the ANAF SPV portal via e-Factura UBL. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like export_efactura_xml, get_efactura_status, and refresh_efactura_status, which read or export rather than submit.
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?
The name and description imply submission is for actually filing with ANAF, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over export_efactura_xml or how it relates to get_efactura_status/refresh_efactura_status afterward. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
