Parses Factur-X XML files to extract all invoice data as structured JSON. Supports MINIMUM, BASIC, EN 16931, and EXTENDED profiles.
Parse un fichier XML Factur-X et extrait toutes les données de facturation sous forme JSON structuré. Compatible avec les profils MINIMUM, BASIC, EN 16931 et EXTENDED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xmlContent | Yes | Contenu XML Factur-X à parser |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (parse, extract to JSON) and scope (profiles), but does not mention error handling on invalid XML, read-only nature, limits, or output structure. It is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the core function and output, the second adds compatibility scope. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.
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?
There is a slight ambiguity: the description says 'fichier XML' (XML file) while the schema parameter is 'xmlContent' (string content), which could confuse an agent about whether to provide a file path or content. Additionally, no output schema exists, and the description does not clarify what happens on invalid input or the exact JSON structure. These gaps make it incomplete for a fully informed call.
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% (xmlContent is described as 'Contenu XML Factur-X à parser'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('parse'), a precise resource (Factur-X XML file), and the output (structured JSON), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like facturx_generate (generation) and facturx_extract_from_pdf (PDF extraction). The compatibility with specific profiles adds clarity about scope.
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 description clearly implies the tool is for parsing XML content, which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.