mcp-fattura-elettronica-it

Generate Progressivo Invio

generate_progressivo_invio

Generate a unique ProgressivoInvio identifier for the DatiTrasmissione block, using an optional prefix and explicit sequence (or random for testing) to ensure SDI-unique transmission per Partita IVA.

Instructions

Generate a ProgressivoInvio identifier for the DatiTrasmissione block.

Use this as step 2 in the invoice generation workflow, before build_transmission_header(). The SDI requires each ProgressivoInvio to be unique per transmitter Partita IVA — in production, pass an explicit monotonically increasing sequence number; use the random default only for testing.

prefix (optional): alphabetic 1–3 char prefix, e.g. 'INV' → 'INV00001'. sequence (optional): integer 1–9999999; random 5-digit value if omitted. Total length must not exceed 10 characters.

On success returns {'progressivo_invio': str, 'length': int}. On failure (invalid prefix) returns {'error': ''}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	No	Optional alphabetic prefix (max 3 chars) to prepend to the sequence number. E.g. 'INV' → 'INV00001'. Total length must not exceed 10 chars.
`sequence`	No	Explicit sequence number (1–9999999). If omitted, a random 5-digit number is generated. Callers should track their own sequence in production.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains the uniqueness requirement per transmitter Partita IVA, the random default behavior for testing, the 10-character length constraint, and the exact success and failure return shapes. This is comprehensive for a pure identifier-generation tool with no side effects.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then parameters, then return values. Every sentence contributes essential information, including the unique-per-transmitter constraint and production guidance. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains workflow positioning, uniqueness constraints, production vs. testing behavior, parameter constraints, and both success and error return formats. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by reinforcing the production/testing distinction for 'sequence' and giving the concrete example 'INV' → 'INV00001'. It does not fully replace the schema, but it enriches the parameter semantics usefully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a ProgressivoInvio identifier for the DatiTrasmissione block.' It is clearly distinguished from siblings by naming the exact workflow step and its predecessor tool, build_transmission_header(). An agent can immediately understand what this tool produces and where it fits.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this as step 2 in the invoice generation workflow, before build_transmission_header().' It also provides production vs. testing guidance, explaining that a monotonically increasing sequence should be passed in production and the random default should be used only for testing. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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

Deploy Server