mcp-einvoicing-de
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-einvoicing-de
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for DACH e-invoicing. Create XRechnung (UBL) and ZUGFeRD 2.3 (Factur-X CII) invoices, validate against EN 16931 rules, extract data from XML, and convert between UBL, CII and JSON formats.630 npm2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for Spanish Electronic Invoicing. Provides tools to generate, validate, and submit invoices across VERI\*FACTU, Facturae/FACe, SII, TicketBAI, and Crea y Crece B2B.202Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for French Electronic Invoicing (NF XP Z12-013). Provide tools to validate, generate, and explore API specifications for PDP/OD interoperability.234Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for Belgian Electronic Invoicing (Peppol BIS 3.0 / PINT-BE / Mercurius). Provides tools to validate, generate, and transform UBL 2.1 e-invoices, and look up BCE/KBO enterprise data and Peppol participants.50Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceModel Context Protocol (MCP) server for Italian Electronic Invoicing (FatturaPA / SDI). Provide tools to validate, generate, and explore API specifications for Sistema di Interscambio (SDI) interoperability.431Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for German e-invoice compliance (XRechnung 3.0 & ZUGFeRD 2.x) enabling AI agents to validate, generate, parse, and check compliance of electronic invoices per EN 16931.61MIT
TDQS
Scored across 50 tools
The tool set has many code list checking tools that follow a clear pattern (list_X_codes/check_X_code), which are distinct from the invoice processing tools. However, there are repeated tools (e.g., list_eas_codes appears twice in the provided list) and some closely related validation tools (TSR vs MLS vs EUSR) that could cause confusion.
Most tools follow consistent verb_noun patterns: check_, list_, get_, create_, validate_. There are minor deviations like `peppol_lookup_participant` and `resolve_peppol_dns` using different prefixes, but overall the naming is predictable and clear.
50+ tools is excessive, largely driven by repetitive list_x_codes/check_x_code pairs for each codelist. The core invoice functionality is only ~5 tools, while code-list helpers dominate the surface.
The invoice lifecycle is well covered with create/validate/convert/export, and Peppol lookup/send tools cover the main delivery flow. Missing operations like cancel or fetch invoice history are minor for the domain scope.