mcp-facturacion-electronica-es

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Es Check B2B Mandate Applicability

es__check_b2b_mandate_applicability

Check which Spanish e-invoicing regime applies (VERI*FACTU, SII, TicketBAI, NaTicket) based on turnover, province, and SII enrollment, applying RD 254/2025 exclusion logic.

Instructions

Determina el régimen de facturación electrónica aplicable.

VERI*FACTU, SII, TicketBAI, NaTicket, a partir del volumen de operaciones, código de provincia y enrolamiento en SII. Aplica la lógica de exclusión mutua del Real Decreto 254/2025.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity_type`	No	Tipo de obligado: 'IS' (Sociedades) o 'IRPF'.	IS
`enrolled_in_sii`	No	Inscripción en el SII (por defecto: false).
`annual_turnover_eur`	Yes	Volumen anual de operaciones IVA en EUR.
`tax_address_province_code`	Yes	Código de provincia INE de dos dígitos.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.8.0Aug 26, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / entity_type / default
```
Added value: +"IS"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / entity_type / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "IS",
-  "IRPF"
-]
```
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedv0.0.1May 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool applies mutual exclusion logic from RD 254/2025, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe what happens on edge cases (e.g., invalid province code, zero turnover, conflicting inputs), nor does it mention whether the tool returns a single regime or a list. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds the legal logic. It's efficient, though the line break and formatting could be slightly cleaner. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), which likely explains return values. The description covers the inputs and the decision logic. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but for a determination/check tool with a clear purpose and full schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. A note on what the output looks like would make it 5.

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 four parameters. The description adds context by explaining how the parameters are used (volume, province code, SII enrollment) to determine the regime, but it doesn't add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: determining the applicable e-invoicing regime (VERI*FACTU, SII, TicketBAI, NaTicket) based on turnover, province code, and SII enrollment. It also references the specific legal logic (Real Decreto 254/2025), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like es__detect_regional_regime or es__generate_b2b_einvoice_es.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to determine which e-invoicing regime applies based on business parameters. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., es__detect_regional_regime) and the specific inputs make the usage context fairly clear. A brief mention of alternatives would push this to 5.

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