mcp-einvoicing-de

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Peppol Send

peppol_send

Send UBL/CII invoices to a Peppol participant via AS4. Automatically resolves the recipient's SMP endpoint, builds the ebMS3/AS4 envelope, and transmits it with your signing credentials.

Instructions

Send a UBL/CII invoice to a Peppol participant via AS4.

Looks up the recipient's AS4 endpoint (SMP), builds the ebMS3/AS4 envelope, and transmits it using the supplied signing credentials.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sender_id`	Yes	Peppol AP identifier of the sender.
`environment`	No	"production" or "test".	test
`certificate_path`	Yes	Path to the PEM-encoded signing certificate.
`document_type_id`	No	Peppol document type identifier URN (default: BIS Billing 3.0 invoice).	urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2::Invoice##urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017#compliant#urn:fdc:peppol.eu:2017:poacc:billing:3.0::2.1
`private_key_path`	Yes	Path to the PEM-encoded private key.
`invoice_xml_base64`	Yes	Base64-encoded UBL or CII invoice XML.
`private_key_password`	No	Optional password for the private key.
`recipient_identifier`	Yes	Peppol participant ID or adaptable national identifier of the receiver.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedv0.11.0Aug 28, 2026

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

addedInput schema / properties / certificate_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Path to the PEM-encoded signing certificate.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / document_type_id

Added value: +{
+  "default": "urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2::Invoice##urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017#compliant#urn:fdc:peppol.eu:2017:poacc:billing:3.0::2.1",
+  "description": "Peppol document type identifier URN (default:\nBIS Billing 3.0 invoice).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / environment / description
```
Added value: +"\"production\" or \"test\"."
```
removedInput schema / properties / environment / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "production",
-  "test"
-]
```

removedInput schema / properties / invoice

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ZUGFeRDInvoice data.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / invoice_xml_base64

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Base64-encoded UBL or CII invoice XML.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / private_key_password

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional password for the private key.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / private_key_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Path to the PEM-encoded private key.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / recipient_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Peppol participant ID (scheme:value).",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / recipient_identifier

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Peppol participant ID or adaptable\nnational identifier of the receiver.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / sender_id / description

Previous value: -"Sender AP identifier."New value: +"Peppol AP identifier of the sender."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "invoice",
-  "recipient_id",
-  "sender_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "invoice_xml_base64",
+  "recipient_identifier",
+  "sender_id",
+  "certificate_path",
+  "private_key_path"
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

Addedv0.6.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral pipeline: SMP lookup of the AS4 endpoint, ebMS3/AS4 envelope construction, and transmission with signing credentials. This gives the agent a concrete model of what will happen when invoking the 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action and delivery mechanism are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary process detail without redundancy.

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?

Given the rich input schema, the presence of an output schema, and the straightforward send operation, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It could mention environment semantics or that the invoice should be validated first, but those are not critical to making a correct call and are partly captured by the schema.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters well. The description adds only light contextual framing like 'signing credentials' and 'UBL/CII invoice', which is useful but does not materially go beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a UBL/CII invoice to a Peppol participant via AS4.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like peppol_lookup_participant or invoice_validate by describing the actual transmission action rather than lookup, validation, or conversion.

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 gives a clear usage context: this is the tool to use when you need to transmit an invoice to a Peppol participant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is unambiguous and the sibling names make the distinction apparent.

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

Deploy Server