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

mcp-einvoicing-be

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

transform_to_ubl

Converts structured JSON invoice data into UBL 2.1 XML for Belgian e-invoicing without built-in validation, enabling separate validation or direct submission.

Instructions

Convert a structured JSON invoice payload to UBL 2.1 XML.

Unlike generate_invoice_be, this tool does not run validation after transformation. Intended as a conversion step when the caller will validate separately or submit directly to a platform that performs its own validation.

Returns a dict with:

  • xml: the generated UBL 2.1 XML string

  • warnings: list of non-fatal issues detected during transformation

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "transform_to_ubl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesSource invoice data matching the BEInvoice schema

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that no validation is performed, output format (xml, warnings), and non-fatal issues. With no annotations, but sufficient for a conversion 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?

Three sentences plus a bullet list. Front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with output schema, description covers purpose, usage, behavior, return values, and references to sibling tool.

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 covers 100% of parameter (data), description adds context about it being a structured JSON invoice and mentions output. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it converts a structured JSON invoice to UBL 2.1 XML, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling generate_invoice_be.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (caller will validate separately) and contrasts with generate_invoice_be which does validation.

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