mcp-facturacion-electronica-es

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Es Get Face Invoice Status

es__get_face_invoice_status

Check the processing status of a Spanish government invoice in FACe using its registration number, with codes for registered, recognized, rejected, and paid.

Instructions

Consulta el estado de tramitación de una factura en FACe.

Códigos: 1200 Registrada, 2400 Reconocida, 3100 Rechazada, 4100 Pagada.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	Número de registro FACe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.0Aug 26, 2026

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

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.0.1May 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries status but does not mention any side effects (though likely read-only), authentication needs, or rate limits. Since the description does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but lacks necessary behavioral context, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. The status code list is useful and does not add unnecessary length. It could be slightly more structured with a clear 'when to use' line, but overall it is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema (though not detailed), and no annotations. The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple status check. However, without annotations, it lacks details on authentication or potential errors, and the output schema isn't explained. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter (invoice_id) as 'Número de registro FACe' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond reinforcing the domain (FACe). Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate for any lack of detail.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the processing status of an invoice in FACe. It specifies a verb and resource ('consulta el estado'), making it easy to understand. Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings, the unique verb and resource combination, along with the provided status codes, help differentiate it.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for checking invoice status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, tools like es__query_verifactu_status or es__submit_to_face exist, but no explicit guidance is given. However, the inclusion of status codes suggests practical usage, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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