No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 34 tools
Most tools target a distinct entity and action (company, establishment, routing code, directory line, flow, webhook), and identifier-based getters are clearly separated by lookup key. The main ambiguity is between the generic submit_flow and the specialized submit_transaction_report/submit_payment_report/submit_lifecycle_status, which all submit or build flows but are differentiated by payload construction and scope.
The dominant patterns are clear: search_*, get_*_by_*, create_*/update_*/replace_*/delete_*, submit_*, and validate_*. Minor inconsistencies exist such as healthcheck_flow vs check_ppf_annuaire_health, get_directory_line vs get_directory_line_by_code, and list_webhooks vs the search_* convention.
At 34 tools, the server covers many subdomains—directory lookups, routing-code/directory-line CRUD, flow submission/retrieval, validators, and webhooks—so the count is not absurd, but it is well beyond the comfortable 3–15 range. The breadth of the underlying API justifies the size, but it makes the MCP surface heavy for an agent to navigate reliably.
The server covers the core lifecycle well: search/get for directory entities, full CRUD for directory lines and webhooks, flow submission/retrieval/search/status, and validation for e-reporting and Factur-X. The main gap is that routing codes have create/update/replace but no delete operation, which leaves a lifecycle hole.