Skip to main content
Glama
VoxFactura

voxfactura-mcp

by VoxFactura
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

export_fec

Exports the year's accounting entries as a tab-delimited FEC file for your accountant; requires accounting permission.

Instructions

Fichier des écritures comptables (FEC, texte tabulé) de l'année, à remettre à l'expert-comptable. Nécessite la permission comptabilité.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anneeYes
dossierNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / dossier
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Dossier"
+}
  2. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses one important prerequisite ('Nécessite la permission comptabilité'), which is useful auth context. However, nothing about the output format beyond 'texte tabulé', no indication of which data is included or excluded, and no note about the year-vs-dossier scoping behavior.

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?

Very short and essentially front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite. No padding, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should specify the year/dossier semantics and what the export contains or excludes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameter is described in the text. The description implies 'de l'année' scoping, weakly hinting at the annee parameter, but neither annee nor dossier is explained, and their roles (e.g. filtering by folder) are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (FEC – fichier des écritures comptables) and the format (texte tabulé) with a year scope, which is more specific than a bare name. However, the verb is only implied ('à remettre à l'expert-comptable') rather than an explicit action like 'exporte'. It lacks a clear action verb but the resource is identifiable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it is meant for the accountant, implying a periodic/legal accounting use, but no sibling is named and no condition for use is given.

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