Skip to main content
Glama
cmendezs

mcp-facture-electronique-fr

submit_lifecycle_status

Emit lifecycle statuses (Refused, Approved, Cashed, etc.) on received invoices for French electronic invoicing compliance. Builds a CDAR document and requires user confirmation for execution.

Instructions

Emit a processing status on a received invoice: Refused, Approved, PartiallyApproved, Disputed, Suspended, Cashed, PaymentTransmitted, Cancelled. Refused and Cashed are mandatory transmissions to PPF. Reason is mandatory for Refused, Disputed, PartiallyApproved, and Suspended.

Builds a real CDAR (CrossDomainAcknowledgementAndResponse, XP Z12-014 v1.4) document — see mcp_facture_electronique_fr.clients.flow_client for the MDT-* field mapping this depends on.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoStatus reason (CDAR MDT-114), mandatory per XP Z12-014 Annex A for Refused, Disputed, PartiallyApproved, and Suspended. Free text.
currencyNoISO 4217 currency code for payment_amount (default EUR).EUR
invoice_idYesBT-1 invoice number of the referenced invoice (CDAR MDT-87).
reason_codeNoCoded reason (CDAR MDT-113) from the per-status motif list in XP Z12-014 Annex A 'Tableau des motifs de STATUTS' (e.g. TX_TVA_ERR, DOUBLON). Not validated against that list.
status_codeYesLifecycle status code to emit. Values defined in XP Z12-014 v1.4 (June 2026): Refused (transmitted to PPF), Approved, PartiallyApproved, Disputed, Suspended, Cashed (transmitted to PPF), PaymentTransmitted, Cancelled. Refused and Cashed are mandatory transmissions to PPF.
payment_dateNoPayment date (ISO 8601 format: YYYY-MM-DD). Provided for Cashed and PaymentTransmitted statuses.
included_noteNoFree-text note (CDAR IncludedNote/Content) per the bundled Rejetee worked example.
recipient_uriNoCounterparty's electronic address on the CEF network, if known (CDAR MDT-73).
payment_amountNoPayment amount (decimal string, e.g. '1250.00'). Provided for Cashed and PaymentTransmitted statuses.
issuer_party_idYesGlobalID (e.g. SIREN) of the party emitting this status — you or the counterparty, whichever this MCP server acts on behalf of (CDAR MDT-38).
party_id_schemeNoschemeID attribute shared by both party GlobalIDs (default '0002' = SIRENE, per every bundled AFNOR worked example).0002
issuer_role_codeYesRole of the emitting party: SE (seller) or BY (buyer) (CDAR MDT-40).
receipt_datetimeNoOriginal receipt timestamp of the referenced invoice, ISO 8601 (CDAR MDT-95). Defaults to the current time if omitted — supply the real value when known for an accurate audit trail.
requested_actionNoFree-text requested action (CDAR MDT-122).
invoice_type_codeNoBT-3 invoice type code (CDAR MDT-91, default '380' = Invoice).380
issuer_party_nameYesName of the emitting party (CDAR MDT-39).
confirmation_tokenNoConfirmation token from a previous call. Omit on the first call; supply on the second call to execute.
invoice_issue_dateYesBT-2 invoice date, ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) (CDAR MDT-100).
recipient_party_idYesGlobalID of the counterparty receiving this status (CDAR MDT-57).
referenced_flow_idYesIdentifier of the invoice flow to which this status applies (flowId returned upon receipt, maxLength 36). Used only for the platform's own flow tracking (flowInfo.trackingId) — not part of the CDAR document content.
recipient_role_codeYesRole of the counterparty — opposite of issuer_role_code (CDAR MDT-59).
recipient_party_nameYesName of the counterparty (CDAR MDT-58).
requested_action_codeNoCoded requested action (CDAR MDT-121), e.g. 'CNF' ('Créer un Avoir total') per the bundled En_litige worked example. Typically used with Disputed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Refused and Cashed are mandatory to PPF, reason mandatory for certain statuses, and the two-call confirmation pattern. It omits error handling but covers key behavioral traits.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with core action, lists statuses clearly, and provides a concise two-call procedure. No redundant sentences.

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 complexity (23 parameters, enums, workflow), the description covers core logic, mandatory fields, and references standards. It could mention error handling but is fairly complete, and output schema exists so return values are covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining which statuses require reason and the confirmation flow, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 emits a processing status on an invoice, lists all allowed statuses, and notes mandatory transmissions to PPF. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_flow which handle initial invoice submission.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context for when to use (after receiving an invoice) and includes a two-call human-in-the-loop procedure. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like submit_flow.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cmendezs/mcp-facture-electronique-fr'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server