E-Invoice Map
REMOTE · EINVOICEMAP.COM
Free, read-only e-invoicing data: mandate dates, Peppol providers, validation-error explainers.
Available components
Last scanned (6 hours ago)
Scores higher than 62% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security80
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability69
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 687 tokens (~98/item across 7 items; 7 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management27
- Stability observed for 8 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 7 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 28 Oct 26 70
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=einvoicemap.com | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 8 Oct 2026 | 6 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 680e1a9e771fb06e78d9073bf1be713032a |
| SANs: *.einvoicemap.com, einvoicemap.com | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of einvoicemap.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| einvoicemap.com. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'none'; frame-ancestors 'none'; base-uri 'none'; form-action 'none' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
| permissions-policy | geolocation=(), camera=(), microphone=(), payment=(), interest-cohort=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
deadlines E-invoicing mandate dates ~70
Dates when e-invoicing becomes mandatory, per country (or all countries), each with its official source_url and the date it was checked. Country is a two-letter code such as 'be', 'de', 'ae' or a country name; leave it out for all countries.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | – | – | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
directory_counts Peppol Directory counts ~68
How many businesses are listed in the Peppol network directory, per country, with the change since the last day (source: Peppol Directory (OpenPeppol AISBL)). Country is a two-letter code or 'all'; leave it out for every country.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | – | – | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
explain_validation_error Explain an e-invoice validation error ~64
Plain-language explanation of a common e-invoice validation rule such as 'BR-CO-10' or 'PEPPOL-EN16931-R120': what it means, usual causes, how to fix it and who fixes it.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
foreign_supplier_scope Do foreign suppliers have to e-invoice? ~68
Whether a supplier with no establishment in a country must e-invoice there, from our 47-country table: the system, the B2B status and what applies to foreign suppliers, with official sources. Country is a two-letter code or an English name.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
lookup_access_point Which provider receives a company's e-invoices? ~113
For a business identifier you give (for example a Belgian company number or a Peppol ID such as 0208:0521875440), find the access-point provider that receives its e-invoices on the Peppol network: provider organisation, SMP host, document types, certificate validity. Provider metadata only. Limited per day; when the limit is reached the answer points to the free lookup on the website. Country is an optional two-letter hint.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | – | – | – |
| identifier | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
provider One provider's profile ~55
Profile of one tracked provider by name or id (for example 'billit'): what it can do, formats, languages, free plan and prices, each price with its source and check date.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_or_slug | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
providers Tracked e-invoicing providers ~58
E-invoicing providers we track in a country (two-letter code), alphabetical by product name, with a link to each provider's page. The order never depends on payment; ads and affiliate links are not included.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
How do I install the E-Invoice Map MCP server?
E-Invoice Map is a hosted endpoint at https://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · einvoicemap.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-einvoicemap-e-invoice-map 'https://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp'
What is the E-Invoice Map MCP server?
E-Invoice Map is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.einvoicemap/e-invoice-map. Free, read-only e-invoicing data: mandate dates, Peppol providers, validation-error explainers. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://einvoicemap.com/api/v1/mcp).
Is the E-Invoice Map MCP server safe to use?
E-Invoice Map scores 74 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the E-Invoice Map MCP server expose?
E-Invoice Map exposes 7 tools: deadlines, providers, provider, explain_validation_error, foreign_supplier_scope, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 496 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the E-Invoice Map MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to E-Invoice Map without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the E-Invoice Map MCP server still maintained?
E-Invoice Map is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What did VerifyMCP test on the E-Invoice Map MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on E-Invoice Map, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.