mcp-facture-electronique-fr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_routing_code

Create a routing code for a French electronic invoicing establishment by providing SIRET, routing identifier, type, label, and nature. Requires user confirmation before final submission.

Instructions

Create a routing code (POST /code-routage).

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	Default
`siret`	Yes	Establishment SIRET (14 digits) this routing code belongs to.
`confirmation_token`	No	Confirmation token from a previous call. Omit on the first call.
`etat_administratif`	No	'A' (active) or 'F' (closed).	A
`identifiant_routage`	Yes	Routing-code identifier to create (max 100 chars, pattern [-_/@a-zA-Z0-9]).
`libelle_code_routage`	Yes	Human-readable label for the routing code.
`nature_etablissement`	Yes	Whether the establishment is private or public.
`type_identifiant_routage`	Yes	4-digit type code for the routing-code identifier (typeIdentifiantRoutage).
`gestion_engagement_juridique`	No	Whether a legal-commitment number (engagement juridique) is mandatory.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 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 / etat_administratif

Added value: +{
+  "default": "A",
+  "description": "'A' (active) or 'F' (closed).",
+  "enum": [
+    "A",
+    "F"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / gestion_engagement_juridique

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Whether a legal-commitment number (engagement juridique) is mandatory."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / identifiant_routage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Routing-code identifier to create (max 100 chars, pattern [-_/@a-zA-Z0-9]).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / label

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Human-readable label for the routing code (e.g. 'Purchasing department - HQ'). Optional but recommended for clarity when multiple codes exist."
-}

addedInput schema / properties / libelle_code_routage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Human-readable label for the routing code.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / nature_etablissement

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether the establishment is private or public.",
+  "enum": [
+    "Privé",
+    "Public"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / routing_code

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Routing code value to create (free-form string, e.g. 'PURCHASING-DEPT', 'PARIS-OFFICE'). This exact value will appear in invoicing addresses and must be communicated to senders.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / siret / description

Previous value: -"Establishment SIRET to associate this routing code with (14 digits). The SIRET must already be registered and Active in the PPF directory."New value: +"Establishment SIRET (14 digits) this routing code belongs to."

addedInput schema / properties / type_identifiant_routage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "4-digit type code for the routing-code identifier (typeIdentifiantRoutage).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "siret",
-  "routing_code"
-]New value: +[
+  "siret",
+  "identifiant_routage",
+  "type_identifiant_routage",
+  "libelle_code_routage",
+  "nature_etablissement"
+]

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.2Apr 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / label / description

Previous value: -"Descriptive label for the routing code (e.g. 'Purchasing department - HQ')."New value: +"Human-readable label for the routing code (e.g. 'Purchasing department - HQ'). Optional but recommended for clarity when multiple codes exist."

changedInput schema / properties / routing_code / description

Previous value: -"Routing code value to create (free-form string, e.g. 'PURCHASING-DEPT', 'PARIS-OFFICE'). This code will be used in the recipient's invoicing address."New value: +"Routing code value to create (free-form string, e.g. 'PURCHASING-DEPT', 'PARIS-OFFICE'). This exact value will appear in invoicing addresses and must be communicated to senders."

changedInput schema / properties / siret / description

Previous value: -"Establishment SIRET to associate this routing code with (14 digits)."New value: +"Establishment SIRET to associate this routing code with (14 digits). The SIRET must already be registered and Active in the PPF directory."

First observedv0.2.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the key behavioral trait (human-in-the-loop requirement) and the two-step invocation pattern. However, does not mention side effects, permissions, or the fact that the first call returns a confirmation token (though implied).

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a procedural note. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

Covers the critical human-in-the-loop workflow. The output schema exists, so return values need not be in the description. Could mention that creation is immediate or provide error handling hints, but overall sufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and a two-step process.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds value only for the confirmation_token parameter in terms of usage, not semantics. 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?

Clearly states 'Create a routing code' with the HTTP method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_routing_code and replace_routing_code.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes the two-step human-in-the-loop process: call without confirmation_token, show summary, then call with token. This provides clear, actionable usage instructions.

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