Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_issuing_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a company can issue a STANDARD invoice now; returns blockers preventing issuance, covering activation and VeriFactu readiness per NIF.

Instructions

Returns whether a company can issue its STANDARD invoice right now in the environment of the request, and the blockers that stop it otherwise. Readiness is a per-NIF property, evaluated independently for each company of the account.

  • ready: true only when blockers is empty.

  • Activation: issuing any fiscal document requires the company to be activated in the environment of that document, whether or not it goes to VeriFactu.

  • VeriFactu chain: the AEAT census and signed representation are additionally demanded only when the company is under the VeriFactu regime in this environment — the same fact that decides, at issue time, whether its invoices are registered. A company with VeriFactu off is ready with a NIF, a default series and an activation, and the separate verifactu block reports the compliance chain independently.

  • Not evaluated: the account's quota or subscription, and the payload of any particular invoice.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/issuing-readiness

⚠️ Read before calling:

  • Which company an operation acts on, and how that is selected. (resource: beel://guardrails/multi-nif)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company whose issuing readiness is evaluated — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"NIF (company) whose issuing readiness is evaluated. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A NIF you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a NIF that does not exist."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company whose issuing readiness is evaluated — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds substantial context beyond them: the activation prerequisite, the VeriFactu compliance chain condition, that readiness is per-NIF, and explicitly what is NOT evaluated (quota, subscription, invoice payload).

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-loads the core purpose, then breaks semantics into clear bolded bullets and a scope-exclusion line. Slightly dense, and the 'Read before calling' pointer to an external resource is a little opaque, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by explaining `ready`, `blockers`, and the separate `verifactu` block. It is complete for correct invocation, missing only sibling routing and any hint on cost or freshness of readiness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema field already documents company_id, UUID format, 403 behavior, and that the BeeL-Active-Company header is irrelevant. The description reinforces that readiness is per-NIF and environment-scoped but adds no new parameter syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns whether a company can issue its STANDARD invoice right now') and defines its scope precisely, including what qualifies as ready. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against related siblings such as beel_get_setup_status or beel_get_verifactu_configuration, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a 'Read before calling' note pointing at the multi-NIF guardrails resource and clarifies the per-NIF, per-environment evaluation, plus a 'Not evaluated' scope exclusion. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling readiness/config tools, so usage is only implied.

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