Check B2B e-invoicing mandate status across European countries. See which have mandates, planned dates, and systems to ensure cross-border compliance.
Get the B2B e-invoicing mandate status across all countries. Shows which countries have mandates, planned dates, and systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read and the description discloses the returned content, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, country coverage limits, or whether results are cached or live.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds concrete content detail rather than padding.
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 parameterless read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and anticipate the shape of the answer. It could go further by clarifying how results are scoped or updated, but nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filter semantics that don't exist.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('get the B2B e-invoicing mandate status') plus scope ('across all countries') and enumerates what the result contains (mandates, planned dates, systems). It is clearly distinct from country-specific siblings like get_einvoicing_requirements, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 'across all countries' phrasing implicitly signals this is the global-overview tool rather than a per-country lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternatives among the many similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.