Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_verifactu_configuration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a company's VeriFactu configuration by company ID to confirm the NIF setup and identify any blockers before issuing invoices.

Instructions

Retrieves the VeriFactu configuration of this company. The configuration belongs to the NIF, so the NIF in the path is what decides which one is returned.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/verifactu-configuration

⚠️ Read before calling:

  • How to tell, before issuing, whether a NIF can issue, and what each blocker means. (resource: beel://guardrails/verifactu-gates)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — 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, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.

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) the operation acts on. 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, so the existence of a NIF in another account is never disclosed."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — 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, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the NIF-scoping nuance and an endpoint string; it says nothing about caching, auth requirements, or what happens for an unconfigured company.

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 the purpose, then the NIF-scoping caveat, then the endpoint and a short warning block. The guardrails pointer is somewhat tangential to a read-configuration call, but nothing is bloated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, yet it never says what the configuration actually contains (enabled flag, activation state, certificate data, etc.). The NIF scoping is a useful addition, but an agent still cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single company_id parameter is already richly documented in the schema (UUID format, 403 semantics, header irrelevance). The description's claim that "the NIF in the path is what decides which one is returned" is slightly misleading since only company_id appears in the path, and it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 and resource ("Retrieves the VeriFactu configuration of this company") and adds the non-obvious nuance that the configuration is keyed by NIF rather than company, which separates it from the similarly named beel_get_tax_configuration and beel_get_issuing_readiness. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

The "Read before calling" block points the agent at the beel://guardrails/verifactu-gates resource, but that guidance concerns whether a NIF can issue invoices rather than when to call this getter versus beel_get_issuing_readiness or beel_update_verifactu_configuration. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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