Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zatca-mcp

zatca-mcp

by DoubleH10
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

check_compliance

Validate signed invoices against ZATCA compliance rules to ensure they pass server-side checks before submission, preventing production errors.

Instructions

Check a signed invoice against ZATCA compliance rules.

Validates the invoice with ZATCA's server-side checks before actual submission. Useful for testing compliance without affecting production records.

Args: signed_invoice_xml: Signed UBL 2.1 XML invoice string invoice_hash: Base64-encoded SHA-256 hash of the invoice invoice_uuid: Invoice UUID certificate: Base64-encoded compliance certificate secret: API secret from ZATCA environment: "sandbox" or "production"

Returns: JSON with ZATCA validation results

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "signed_invoice_xml": "<signed_invoice_xml>",
      "invoice_hash": "<invoice_hash>",
      "invoice_uuid": "<invoice_uuid>",
      "certificate": "<certificate>",
      "secret": "<secret>"
    },
    "name": "check_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
secretYes
certificateYes
environmentNosandbox
invoice_hashYes
invoice_uuidYes
signed_invoice_xmlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It says the tool performs a server-side validation and returns JSON results, but does not disclose rate limits, failure behavior, or authentication specifics beyond parameters.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a one-line summary, a usage sentence, and a clear Args/Returns list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides parameter meanings, return type, and use case. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a check tool.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains all 6 parameters with brief descriptions, including the 'environment' parameter enumerating 'sandbox' or 'production', adding meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'signed invoice against ZATCA compliance rules', and distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_invoice' and 'validate_invoice' by specifying it's a pre-submission compliance check.

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 says 'useful for testing compliance without affecting production records', implying use before submission. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools