mcp-facture-electronique-fr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_directory_line

Create an electronic invoice receiving address (directory line) for a taxable entity, requiring user confirmation before final submission.

Instructions

Create a directory line (electronic invoice receiving address) (POST /ligne-annuaire).

HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP: Requires user confirmation. Call without confirmation_token first, show the summary to the user, then call again with the token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siren`	Yes	SIREN of the taxable entity creating this receiving address.
`siret`	No	Specific establishment SIRET. If absent, applies to the whole SIREN.
`date_fin_effet`	No	Effective end date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD, if known.
`date_debut_effet`	Yes	Effective start date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD (dateDebutEffet).
`suffixe_adressage`	No	Addressing suffix (suffixeAdressage).
`confirmation_token`	No	Confirmation token from a previous call. Omit on the first call.
`identifiant_routage`	No	Routing-code identifier to refine the address.
`matricule_plateforme`	Yes	4-digit Approved Platform registration number receiving the invoices.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedv0.7.0Jul 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirmation_token

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Confirmation token from a previous call. Omit on the first call."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / date_debut_effet

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Effective start date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD (dateDebutEffet).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / date_fin_effet

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Effective end date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD, if known."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / identifiant_routage

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Routing-code identifier to refine the address."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / matricule_plateforme

Added value: +{
+  "description": "4-digit Approved Platform registration number receiving the invoices.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / platform_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Identifier of the Approved Platform that will receive the invoices (provided by your AP upon registration).",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / routing_code

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Routing code to refine the receiving address (must exist via create_routing_code)."
-}

changedInput schema / properties / siren / description

Previous value: -"SIREN of the taxable entity (9 digits) creating this receiving address."New value: +"SIREN of the taxable entity creating this receiving address."

changedInput schema / properties / siret / description

Previous value: -"Specific establishment SIRET (14 digits). If absent, the line applies to all establishments under the SIREN."New value: +"Specific establishment SIRET. If absent, applies to the whole SIREN."

addedInput schema / properties / suffixe_adressage

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Addressing suffix (suffixeAdressage)."
+}

removedInput schema / properties / technical_address

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "AP-specific technical receiving address (endpoint, mailbox, etc.). Format defined by the Approved Platform."
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "siren",
-  "platform_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "siren",
+  "matricule_plateforme",
+  "date_debut_effet"
+]

First observedv0.2.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the human-in-the-loop requirement, the two-step process (call without token, then with token), and implies it is a creation operation. This is comprehensive for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise—three lines including the endpoint and critical human-in-the-loop note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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 tool has 8 parameters (3 required), an output schema, and a human-in-the-loop pattern, the description covers the essential workflow adequately. It does not explain error handling or output details, but the output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline. No extra constraints or clarifications are provided.

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: 'Create a directory line (electronic invoice receiving address)' and includes the specific HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_directory_line, get_directory_line, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions the human-in-the-loop workflow but lacks guidance on when to prefer create_directory_line over replace_directory_line or update_directory_line. Implicit from context, but not explicit.

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