mcp-einvoicing-be
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-einvoicing-be
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for German Electronic Invoicing (ZUGFeRD 2.x / XRechnung 3.x). Provides tools to validate, generate, parse, and convert invoices compliant with EN 16931 and KoSIT.502Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for Spanish Electronic Invoicing. Provides tools to generate, validate, and submit invoices across VERI\*FACTU, Facturae/FACe, SII, TicketBAI, and Crea y Crece B2B.202Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for DACH e-invoicing. Create XRechnung (UBL) and ZUGFeRD 2.3 (Factur-X CII) invoices, validate against EN 16931 rules, extract data from XML, and convert between UBL, CII and JSON formats.6232MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for United Arab Emirates Electronic Invoicing (PINT AE / Peppol 5-Corner Model). Provides tools to validate, generate, and explore API specifications for FTA / Peppol interoperability.4171Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for Singapore Electronic Invoicing (InvoiceNow / PINT-SG / Peppol 5-Corner Model). Provides tools to validate, generate, and explore API specifications for IRAS / Peppol interoperability.17Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for French Electronic Invoicing (NF XP Z12-013). Provide tools to validate, generate, and explore API specifications for PDP/OD interoperability.34Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 50 tools
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, especially the regular list_X/check_X code-list pairs. The main ambiguous spots are generate_invoice_be vs transform_to_ubl and peppol_lookup_participant vs peppol_directory_search, though the descriptions largely resolve them. The set is strong overall but not perfectly unambiguous.
Almost every tool follows a readable snake_case verb-first convention, and the list_X/check_X families are highly consistent. There are minor deviations: the peppol_ prefix is used on some tools but not on related code-list/report tools, and transform_to_ubl breaks the verb_noun pattern. Still predictable and navigable.
At 50 tools, the server is well above the 25+ threshold that indicates an oversized surface. The 28 list/check codelist tools are especially redundant and could be consolidated into parameterized lookup/check tools. The core invoicing functionality is buried under code-list boilerplate.
Core Belgian e-invoicing workflows are covered: generate, transform, validate, parse, VAT lookup, Peppol participant lookup, AS4 send, and report validation. Notable gaps exist though, such as no check counterpart for SPIS use cases, no full Peppol BIS3 overlay validation, and no direct credit/debit note generation or validation. Agents can work around these but they are more than minor omissions.