facturolia-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to facturolia-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceInvoiceXML brings e-invoice compliance to your AI agent. Create, validate, convert, render, and extract structured invoices across UBL (Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, used worldwide), CII, Factur-X, ZUGFeRD, and XRechnung, all checked against the EN 16931 standard and official Schematron rules. Ask your assistant to generate a compliant invoice, validate one for errors, or convert between formats, with n5MIT- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceValidates EU electronic invoices (Peppol, XRechnung, FatturaPA, etc.) and explains validation error codes, enabling AI coding agents to check invoice validity and get fixes before rejection.325 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to locally parse, validate, audit, explain, generate, and convert XRechnung and ZUGFeRD/Factur-X e-invoices using official rule sets, fully offline with no API keys required.Apache 2.0

InvoiceInofficial
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceReads and validates any European e-invoice a business receives — XRechnung, UBL, CII, ZUGFeRD/Factur-X PDF, Peppol BIS 3, FatturaPA, KSeF FA(3) — into canonical EN 16931 JSON with plain-language fix hints in EN/DE/PL/IT/FR, plus PDF, CSV and DATEV export. Nothing is stored; works without a key on a small daily quota.25MIT- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceValidates electronic invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD, Factur-X, Peppol BIS, etc.) against authority-pinned rules and explains failures.213 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables autonomous agents to validate, audit, and correct e-invoices against European standards (EN16931) and Peppol regulations.1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: read_invoice extracts full contents while check_invoice returns only the validation verdict. Their descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to prevent confusion, so an agent can easily select the right one.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (read_invoice, check_invoice), using snake_case and clear action words. The only minor deviation is that they are not from the same action family (read vs. check), but this is acceptable given the distinct operations.
With only 2 tools, the surface is quite thin, but for a focused invoice-processing server that offers exactly two complementary operations (read and check), it may be sufficient. However, typical MCP servers have more tools, so this feels slightly minimal.
The domain appears to be electronic invoice handling, and the two tools cover content extraction and validation. Missing operations include invoice creation, listing, or deletion, but for an analysis/validation service, these might be out of scope. Still, there is no way to manage invoices, so the surface is incomplete for a full lifecycle.