mcp-facturacion-electronica-es

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Es Get Compliance Status

es__get_compliance_status

Check compliance status for Spanish electronic invoicing. Get mandatory deadlines and required system based on entity type, province, SII enrollment, and annual turnover.

Instructions

Devuelve los plazos de mandato vigentes y el sistema operativo para un perfil de empresa.

Refleja el RD-ley 15/2025 — sujeto a cambios por legislación posterior.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entity_type`	Yes	Tipo de obligado tributario: 'IS' o 'IRPF'.
`province_code`	Yes	Código de provincia INE de dos dígitos.
`enrolled_in_sii`	No	Inscripción en el SII.
`annual_turnover_eur`	No	Volumen anual de operaciones IVA en EUR (para umbral SII > €6M).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.8.0Aug 26, 2026

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

addedInput schema / properties / annual_turnover_eur / anyOf

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

addedInput schema / properties / annual_turnover_eur / default
```
Added value: +null
```

changedInput schema / properties / annual_turnover_eur / description

Previous value: -"Volumen anual de operaciones IVA en EUR (para umbral SII > €6M)."New value: +"Volumen anual de operaciones IVA en EUR\n(para umbral SII > €6M)."

removedInput schema / properties / annual_turnover_eur / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```

changedInput schema / properties / entity_type / description

Previous value: -"Tipo de obligado tributario."New value: +"Tipo de obligado tributario: 'IS' o 'IRPF'."

removedInput schema / properties / entity_type / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "IS",
-  "IRPF"
-]
```
removedInput schema / properties / province_code / pattern
```
Removed value: -"^[0-9]{1,2}$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.0.1May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says it returns values and warns that the data may change due to later legislation. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, error semantics, rate limits, or the reliability conditions under which it might fail. The warning about future legislative changes is useful but does not fulfill the full transparency burden.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a compliance caveat. No wasted words. It loses one point because the core term 'sistema operativo' is unclear, which could have been replaced with a more precise phrase in the same space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return structure is covered, but the description is too thin for a regulatory determination tool. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'perfil de empresa', how the inputs map to RDL 15/2025 outputs, nor which mandate deadlines/systems are implicated. Given the complexity of the domain and the large sibling set, the description is incomplete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% – all four parameters (entity_type, province_code, enrolled_in_sii, annual_turnover_eur) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; only 'perfil de empresa' loosely aggregates them. Baseline score 3 is appropriate because the description does not harm or compensate beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

La description states the tool 'Devuelve los plazos de mandato vigentes y el sistema operativo' for a company profile, so the general action (returns compliance-related data) is identifiable. However, the term 'sistema operativo' is ambiguous in this tax/legal domain, and the description does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools (SII, Verifactu, Facturae, Face). It is not a tautology, but lacks precision.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance tells an agent when to call this tool instead of a sibling (e.g., es__query_sii_status, es__check_b2b_mandate_applicability, es__detect_regional_regime). The reference to RD-ley 15/2025 implicitly suggests it is for mandates under that law, but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are given.

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