extract_xrechnung_from_zugferdExtract the embedded XRechnung XML from a ZUGFeRD PDF and return it as structured JSON for downstream e-invoice processing.
Extract the embedded XRechnung XML from a ZUGFeRD PDF and return it as structured JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zugferd64 | Yes | Base64-encoded ZUGFeRD PDF |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It usefully discloses the return format ('structured JSON'), but says nothing about failure modes such as a PDF lacking an embedded XRechnung or an invalid ZUGFeRD container, nor about side effects or permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the operation and its output are stated immediately.
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?
For a one-parameter extraction tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it promises 'structured JSON' without indicating the shape of that JSON, and gives no error-behavior context. It covers the happy path only.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing about the single zugferd64 parameter (base64 encoding is already documented in the schema). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Specific verb (Extract) plus resource (embedded XRechnung XML) and source (ZUGFeRD PDF), making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like analyze_pdf_invoice or validate_zugferd_pdf, which also consume PDFs, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
No statement of when to choose this tool over the sibling extractors, validators, or analyzers, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The use case is only loosely implied by the operation itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.