validalatam-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to validalatam-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceLatin American business compliance suite — 28 tools for tax ID validation (CPF, CNPJ, RFC, RUT, CUIT, NIT), banking (PIX, CLABE, CBU), VAT rules, e-invoicing (NF-e, CFDI, DTE), holidays, and labor calendar across Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Colombia.28-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceValidates LatAm banking and tax IDs (Mexican CLABE, Brazilian CNPJ/CPF checksums) and performs BrasilAPI company, CEP, and bank lookups, enabling AI agents to verify financial and tax information in Latin America.36 npmMIT

apipj MCP serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables lookup and validation of Brazilian companies by CNPJ, returning registration status, address, CNAE activities, Simples Nacional/MEI status, and partners from monthly Receita Federal open data, plus validation of numeric or alphanumeric CNPJ check digits and search of active companies by activity and municipality.MIT- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to validate Mexican RFC, CURP, CLABE and NSS identifiers with real check digits, parse CFDI 4.0 invoices with labelled SAT catalogue codes and verified totals, and query the SAT's public status service to see whether an invoice is still valid. It also generates coherent test people and companies, all read-only and without API keys, certificates or PAC contracts.8187 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceValidates CPF check digits and discovers lawsuits by CPF using the holder's name in the official gazette (DJEN), without credentials.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides business intelligence, compliance tools, and economic data for Latin America, including Brazilian company lookups, tax ID validation for multiple countries, and economic indicators from official government sources.-
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single validation, batch validation, test data generation, and listing supported types. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity about when to use each tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: validate_document, validate_batch, generate_test_data, list_document_types. The pattern is predictable and easy to understand.
With only 4 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose. The count is appropriate for a focused validation service.
The tools cover the full lifecycle of document validation: discovery of types, single validation with normalization/formatting, batch validation for bulk needs, and generation of test data. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.