mcp-einvoicing-de

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Invoice Convert

invoice_convert

Convert ZUGFeRD or XRechnung invoices to another profile or syntax, enabling profile upgrades/downgrades and CII-UBL transformation while flagging potential data loss.

Instructions

Convert a ZUGFeRD or XRechnung invoice to a different profile or syntax.

Supports ZUGFeRD profile upgrades and downgrades, ZUGFeRD <-> XRechnung conversion, and cross-syntax CII <-> UBL transformation. Profile downgrades may result in data loss; set allow_data_loss=True to permit this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`xml_base64`	No	Base64-encoded XML bytes.
`xml_content`	No	Raw XML string of the source invoice.
`target_syntax`	No	Target syntax: 'CII' or 'UBL'. UBL is only valid for XRECHNUNG.	CII
`target_profile`	Yes	One of: MINIMUM, BASIC_WL, BASIC, EN_16931, EXTENDED, XRECHNUNG.
`allow_data_loss`	No	If True, allow profile downgrades that discard data. Discarded fields are listed in the output. If False and data loss would occur, the conversion is rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed16 schema fields changedv0.11.0Aug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

removedInput schema / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "xml_content"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "xml_base64"
-    ]
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / allow_data_loss / description

Added value: +"If True, allow profile downgrades that discard\ndata. Discarded fields are listed in the output. If False and\ndata loss would occur, the conversion is rejected."

addedInput schema / properties / target_profile / description

Added value: +"One of: MINIMUM, BASIC_WL, BASIC, EN_16931,\nEXTENDED, XRECHNUNG."

removedInput schema / properties / target_profile / enum

Removed value: -[
-  "MINIMUM",
-  "BASIC_WL",
-  "BASIC",
-  "EN_16931",
-  "EXTENDED",
-  "XRECHNUNG"
-]

addedInput schema / properties / target_syntax / description

Added value: +"Target syntax: 'CII' or 'UBL'. UBL is only valid for\nXRECHNUNG."

removedInput schema / properties / target_syntax / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "CII",
-  "UBL"
-]
```

addedInput schema / properties / xml_base64 / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / xml_base64 / default
```
Added value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / xml_base64 / description
```
Added value: +"Base64-encoded XML bytes."
```
removedInput schema / properties / xml_base64 / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / xml_content / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / xml_content / default
```
Added value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / xml_content / description
```
Added value: +"Raw XML string of the source invoice."
```
removedInput schema / properties / xml_content / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly discloses the risk of data loss on downgrades, explains the allow_data_loss flag's effect, notes that discarded fields are listed in the output, and states that conversion is rejected if data loss would occur while the flag is False. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by supported transformation types and a critical cautionary note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is complex, but the schema covers all parameters at 100%, an output schema exists, and the description covers the key behavioral caveat (data loss). The agent gets everything needed to decide whether conversion is appropriate and how to handle lossy downgrades. No critical gap is apparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema: it restates the data-loss behavior already described for allow_data_loss but doesn't clarify input selection between xml_base64 and xml_content or other parameter nuances. It neither compensates for gaps nor introduces redundant detail.

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 'Convert' with a clear resource ('ZUGFeRD or XRechnung invoice') and a precise target ('different profile or syntax'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like invoice_create, invoice_validate, and invoice_parse by focusing solely on transformation rather than creation, validation, or parsing.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for profile upgrades/downgrades, ZUGFeRD <-> XRechnung conversion, or CII <-> UBL transformation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a perfect score, but the usage context is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server