Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Conformo

Conformo

by arsalmurad
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

E-invoicing requirements for a country

get_country_requirements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up e-invoicing mandates for a country to check B2G/B2B rules, start dates, thresholds, and required formats before creating an invoice or answering when a mandate applies.

Instructions

Looks up the e-invoicing rules for one country in a sourced dataset: B2G and B2B mandates for issuing and receiving, start dates, turnover thresholds, required formats and official sources. Use it before create_invoice to decide which format a buyer in that country needs, or to answer when a mandate applies. It says nothing about a specific invoice; use validate_invoice to check one. Covers BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL. conformoSupport says per format whether this server can create, read and validate it. Entries marked unverified are not confirmed from an official source; say so. Information, not legal advice. Reads a bundled dataset; no network.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. DE, FR.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country returned.
conformoSupportYesPer required format, what this server can do with it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / conformoSupport / additionalProperties / properties / generate / description
      Added value: +"This server can create the format."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / conformoSupport / additionalProperties / properties / note / description
      Added value: +"Limits that apply."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / conformoSupport / additionalProperties / properties / read / description
      Added value: +"This server can read the format."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / conformoSupport / additionalProperties / properties / validate / description
      Added value: +"This server can validate the format."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / conformoSupport / description
      Added value: +"Per required format, what this server can do with it."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / country / description
      Added value: +"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country returned."
  2. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and the closed-world nature, but the description adds real context beyond them: a data-quality caveat that 'unverified' entries are not confirmed from an official source and must be disclosed, plus the meaning of the `conformoSupport` field. Minor overlap exists in restating 'no network', which duplicates openWorldHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then caveats; nearly every sentence carries distinct information. Slight redundancy in 'Reads a bundled dataset; no network' echoing the openWorldHint annotation, but overall tight.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the key embedded field (`conformoSupport`) and the trust caveat for unverified entries. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds the supported country domain (BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL) that the schema does not encode via enum. That materially constrains valid inputs beyond the ISO-code description in 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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource ('Looks up the e-invoicing rules for one country in a sourced dataset') and enumerates the returned content (B2G/B2B mandates, start dates, thresholds, formats, sources). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like validate_invoice and create_invoice.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use it ('before create_invoice to decide which format a buyer needs') and draws a clear exclusion boundary ('It says nothing about a specific invoice; use validate_invoice to check one'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done fully.

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