mcp-facture-electronique-fr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_directory_line

Partially update a directory line in French electronic invoicing by supplying its instance ID and only the fields to modify, like effective end date or platform registration number.

Instructions

Partially update a directory line (PATCH /ligne-annuaire/id-instance:{id-instance}). Only provided fields are modified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id_instance`	Yes	Directory instance ID (idInstance) of the directory line.
`date_fin_effet`	No	New effective end date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD.
`matricule_plateforme`	No	New Approved Platform registration number.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.7.0Jul 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / date_fin_effet

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

addedInput schema / properties / id_instance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Directory instance ID (idInstance) of the directory line.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / instance_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Instance identifier of the directory line to update (returned by create_directory_line or search_directory_line).",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / matricule_plateforme

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "New Approved Platform registration number."
+}

removedInput schema / properties / platform_id

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "New Approved Platform identifier. Use when changing AP (with delete_directory_line on the old one)."
-}

removedInput schema / properties / routing_code

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "New associated routing code."
-}

removedInput schema / properties / technical_address

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "New technical receiving address."
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "instance_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id_instance"
+]

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares the PATCH method and the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are modified'). This is adequate for a simple update tool, though it omits details like idempotency or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action and key behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no extraneous information.

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 low complexity, presence of an output schema, and adequate parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects. It could be slightly more explicit about the use of id_instance, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% with descriptive names and descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that provided fields are updated, which is essential semantic context for using the optional parameters.

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 action: 'Partially update a directory line', including the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_directory_line by specifying that only provided fields are modified, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (for partial updates) versus a full replace, but does not explicitly mention sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It gives clear context but lacks exclusionary instructions.

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