Skip to main content
Glama
cmendezs

mcp-facture-electronique-fr

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Remote

submit_payment_report

Submit DGFiP Flux 10.2/10.4 payment e-reporting flows for B2B international, B2C individual, or aggregated B2C payments using FRR XML payloads.

Instructions

Submit a DGFiP Flux 10.2 / 10.4 payment e-reporting flow.

Builds a FRR XML payload conforming to DGFiP Spécifications Externes v3.2 (payment.xsd / ereporting.xsd) and submits it to the Approved Platform via POST /v1/flows with flowSyntax="FRR".

Use for:

  • International B2B payment reporting (processing_rule=B2BInt, flow_type=UnitaryCustomerPaymentReport)

  • B2C individual payment reporting (processing_rule=B2C, flow_type=UnitaryCustomerPaymentReport)

  • Aggregated B2C payment reporting (processing_rule=B2C, flow_type=AggregatedCustomerPaymentReport)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transmission_idYesTT-1: Unique identifier for this transmission (generated by sender).
issue_datetimeYesTT-3: Transmission creation timestamp, e.g. '20250115T120000+0100'.
type_codeYesTT-4: Transmission type code, e.g. '380'.
sender_idYesTT-8: Identifier of the CS/PDP platform submitting the report.
sender_id_schemeYesTT-7: ID scheme for sender, e.g. 'SIREN', 'SIRET'.
sender_nameYesTT-9: Legal name of the sender platform.
sender_role_codeYesTT-10: Sender role code: 'CS', 'PDP', 'OD', or 'MOA'.
issuer_idYesTT-13: SIREN or SIRET of the French declarant.
issuer_id_schemeYesTT-12: ID scheme for issuer: 'SIREN' or 'SIRET'.
issuer_nameYesTT-14: Legal name of the declarant.
issuer_role_codeYesTT-15: Issuer role: 'MOA' or 'OD'.
period_startYesTT-89: Report period start date (ISO 8601, e.g. '2025-01-01').
period_endYesTT-90: Report period end date (ISO 8601, e.g. '2025-01-31').
invoices_jsonYesJSON array of payment records. Each invoice in the `invoices` JSON list must have: Required fields: invoice_id TT-91 Invoice number (reference to the original invoice) issue_date TT-102 Invoice issue date (ISO 8601) payment_date TT-92 Payment date (ISO 8601) subtotals TT-93..95 List of payment breakdown objects subtotals list entries: tax_percent TT-93 VAT rate (decimal, e.g. "20.0") amount TT-95 Collected amount at this rate (decimal string) currency_code TT-94 (optional) Currency code (e.g. "EUR")
flow_typeYesXP Z12-013 FlowType for this payment report: UnitaryCustomerPaymentReport — Flux 10.2 unit payment AggregatedCustomerPaymentReport — Flux 10.4 aggregated B2C payment
processing_ruleYesB2BInt for international B2B payments, B2C for B2C payments.
transmission_nameNoTT-2: Optional human-readable name for the transmission.
tracking_idNoOptional external tracking identifier for this flow.
confirmation_tokenNoConfirmation token returned by a prior pending response.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Tool Definition Quality

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only states it builds XML and POSTs. It omits important behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, idempotency, rate limits, error behavior, or response structure.

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 approximately 150 words, well-structured with bullet points for use cases. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the high parameter count and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and use cases but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, response format). The presence of an output schema partially reduces the need, but the description could be more comprehensive.

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 parameter details are already complete. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema and the high-level use cases. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Submit', the specific resource 'DGFiP Flux 10.2 / 10.4 payment e-reporting flow', and technical details (FRR XML, POST /v1/flows). It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_flow and submit_transaction_report by focusing exclusively on payment reporting.

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 explicitly lists three use cases with processing_rule and flow_type combinations. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like submit_transaction_report for non-payment flows.

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