Skip to main content
Glama

validate_invoice_schema_latam

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an invoice JSON against mandatory electronic invoice fields for Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Colombia. Returns missing and present fields along with compliance warnings.

Instructions

Validates whether an invoice JSON object contains the mandatory fields required for a valid electronic invoice in a given Latin American country, based on official tax authority requirements (SEFAZ, SAT, SII, AFIP, DIAN). Returns { valid: boolean, country, missing_fields: [], present_fields: [], warnings: [] }. Use when building invoice generation pipelines, pre-submission validation, or compliance checks in agent workflows. Information is reference only — not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
country_codeYesTwo-letter ISO country code. Example: 'BR', 'MX', 'CL', 'AR', 'CO'
invoiceYesInvoice object to validate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validYes
countryNo
missing_fieldsNo
present_fieldsNo
warningsNo
disclaimerNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds return format details and disclaimer about reference only, no legal advice.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and return shape.

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?

Given nested input and output schema described, description covers use cases, return format, and caveat. Also mentions countries covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It mentions country_code and invoice implicitly but adds no new semantics beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it validates invoice JSON for mandatory fields per Latin American country, differentiating from siblings like validate_cuit that validate single fields.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for invoice generation pipelines, pre-submission, and compliance checks. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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/josemvelez78/mcp-latam-business'

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