Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-einvoicing-be

mcp-einvoicing-be

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_country_code

Validate a two-letter country code against the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard to confirm recognition before using it in e-invoicing processes.

Instructions

Check whether code is a recognized ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "check_country_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly frames the operation as a non-mutating validation predicate against a recognized standard, which meaningfully conveys behavior. It does not discuss edge cases like case sensitivity or invalid input handling, but those are minor for a one-parameter checker and the output schema covers return shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the verb, the parameter, and the validation standard all in one concise line.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema is available, and no annotations exist. The description provides enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the many sibling list/check tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the descriptionr̃ name in context and adds real semantics: it must be an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. This goes beyond the schema's bare `string` type by specifying both the standard and the code form.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether'), a specific resource (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code), and the exact input format. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_country_codes and check_currency_code.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to know if a given code is a recognized country code. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_country_codes or other check_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions.

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