Skip to main content
Glama
cmendezs

mcp-einvoicing-de

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-einvoicing-de

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP 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.
      6
      66 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Model 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.
      20
      60 PyPI
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Model 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.
      34
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Model 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.
      50
      50 PyPI
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables creating ZUGFeRD PDFs and XRechnung invoices and validating ZUGFeRD/Factur-X, XRechnung (KoSIT), and Peppol BIS e-invoices through an MCP endpoint, returning validation reports.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Model 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.
      43
      67 PyPI
      2
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 50 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessResponsive