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 right now and identify the blockers preventing issuance, so you can resolve them before attempting emission.

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 applies VeriFactu by default, the same derivation invoice creation uses when verifactu_enabled is omitted. A company with VeriFactu off is ready with a NIF, a default series and an activation. Issuing an invoice with an explicit verifactu_enabled: true still enforces the full chain at emission time regardless of this answer, and the separate verifactu block reports that chain independently of the setting.

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

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

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

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

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context that annotations could not: `ready` is true only when `blockers` is empty, activation is required for any fiscal document, the VeriFactu chain applies conditionally, a separate `verifactu` block reports the chain independently, and certain inputs are not evaluated. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise bullet-style details, endpoint information, and a clear reference to exhaustive docs. Every major section provides decision-relevant information for correctly invoking the tool.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the shape and meaning of `ready`, `blockers`, and the `verifactu` block. It also covers activation requirements, environment specificity, exclusions, and directs the agent to docs for exhaustive rules. This is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers `company_id` thoroughly at 100% coverage: it is a UUID, not a NIF, it is the only source of context, it ignores the BeeL-Active-Company header, and it returns 403 for unreachable or nonexistent companies. The description body itself adds little about the parameter beyond the per-NIF property, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Returns whether a company can issue its STANDARD invoice right now in the environment of the request, and the `blockers` that stop it otherwise.' It also states what the tool does not evaluate (quota, subscription, invoice payload), which helps separate it from other company-level checks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when this tool matters: before issuing, because activation and VeriFactu chain requirements are detailed. It also states exclusions ('Not evaluated: the account's quota or subscription...'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use comparison.

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