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

mcp-einvoicing-be

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_allowance_reason_codes

Retrieve the official CEF EN 16931 allowance reason codes to correctly apply discounts or surcharges in e-invoices.

Instructions

List allowance reason codes from the CEF EN 16931 code list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_allowance_reason_codes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No nnotations are providedso the description carries the behavioral burden . 'List' from a code list implies a non - damaging lookup and the output schema covers the return shape , but no further details such as authorization , ordering , or pagination are stated . This is minimal yet adequate for a simple listing tool .

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 sentence that states the action , resource , and source standard with no redundancy . It is front - loadedand efficient .

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?

Given the low complexity , zero parameters , and presence of an output schema , the description is essentially complete for selecting and invoking the tool . A brief reference to the sibling check tool would be a nice improvement but is not necessary for correctness .

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema , so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs . The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 , and no param info is needed .

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('allowance reason codes') and nameshte source standard (CEF EN 16931) . This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_allowance_reason_code and list_charge_reason_codes without requiring schema inspection .

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 commit implies usage: call this tool to enumerate allellowance Reason codes from the code list . However , it does not explicitly contrast with check_allowance_reason_code or other list tools , so thewhen-to -use vs alternatives is left to inference .

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