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

mcp-einvoicing-be

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_document_name_codes

Retrieve UNCL1001 document name codes from the CEF EN 16931 list to correctly classify e-invoices and related documents.

Instructions

List UNCL1001 document name 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_document_name_codes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only enumeration, and naming the exact code list provides context. It does not mention edge cases such as empty lists or versioning, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is minor, especially with an output schema available.

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 filler. The verb, object, and source are all present, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation, the description plus output schema is nearly complete. It identifies the exact code list and resource. A short pointer to the sibling check_document_name_code tool for validating a single code would have made usage guidance more complete, but the invocation itself is fully specified.

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 0 parameters and the schema already documents this fully, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('UNCL1001 document name codes'), and a specific source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This distinguishes it clearly from its sibling check_document_name_code and other list_* tools.

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 description makes clear what the tool returns, so usage is implied: call it when you need the available document name codes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_document_name_code or other list tools, leaving that decision 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