List all available e-invoicing providers with identifiers, labels, and country codes so you can choose the correct provider for Romania, Germany, Italy, Poland, or France.
List all available e-invoicing providers. Returns provider identifiers, labels, and country codes. Providers include: anaf (Romania), xrechnung (Germany), sdi (Italy), ksef (Poland), facturx (France).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return payload's shape (identifiers, labels, country codes) and the fixed set of providers, which is the main behavioral fact for a static catalog. A minor gap remains about whether the list can be extended.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, followed by a compact provider legend that earns its place by telling the agent which identifiers are valid. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description adequately compensates by naming the returned fields and enumerating the providers. It leaves slightly unclear whether this catalog is exhaustive/static or per-tenant, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no inputs whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly doesn't invent any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all available e-invoicing providers') and enumerates the returned fields plus the concrete provider set, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. This clearly distinguishes it from configuration/sibling tools like einvoice_config_list or einvoice_submit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this before configuring or submitting e-invoices, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.