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

mcp-einvoicing-be

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_icd_code

Validate a code against the ISO 6523 ICD list to determine whether it is recognized. Prevent errors in e-invoice processing by confirming valid scheme identifiers.

Instructions

Check whether code is a recognized ISO 6523 ICD 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_icd_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool checks recognition against ISO 6523, but it does not describe whether the result is a boolean, how malformed or unrecognized codes are handled, case sensitivity, or any error behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or repetition. The core idea is front-loaded and the resource type is made explicit. It is concise without being empty, though the terseness contributes to missing behavioral detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for the basic happy path. However, the lack of usage guidance and edge-case behavior, combined with zero annotations, leaves a noticeable gap for an agent selecting among many similar siblings.

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 only defines code as a string with no description, while schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the code must be an ISO 6523 ICD code, but it stops short of supplying format examples, regex hints, enumerations, or length constraints.

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?

The description states a concrete action, 'Check whether', applied to a specific resource: a recognized ISO 6523 ICD code. This clearly distinguishes it from list_icd_codes, which would enumerate codes, while not being as sharp as it could be about the exact return contract.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool rather than list_icd_codes or another check_*_code sibling. The intended use can be inferred from the name and siblings, but the description does not state it.

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