Tulina

foncier_isochrone

Reachable-area (isochrone / catchment) polygon around a point, via IGN.

The travel-time zone one can reach from (lat, lon) — the primitive for a retail catchment area. Give EITHER minutes (time budget) OR metres (distance budget), not both. mode: "pied"/pedestrian or "voiture"/car. direction: "departure" (area reachable FROM the point) or "arrival" (area FROM WHICH the point is reachable — differs by car with one-ways).

Returns the GeoJSON geometry (Polygon of the reachable area) plus its centroid and bbox. To answer "who is > N min away from X", compute an isochrone around each X and test population/points against the polygons — this tool returns one zone; the coverage analysis is the caller's compose step (e.g. cross with urba_iris population). Geocode the address first (foncier_geocode → lat/lon).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lon": "<lon>"
    },
    "name": "foncier_isochrone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	Yes
`lon`	Yes
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`mode`	No		pied
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`metres`	No
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`minutes`	No
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`direction`	No		departure

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload (GeoJSON geometry Polygon plus centroid and bbox), the source (IGN), and the non-obvious semantic difference between direction='departure' and 'arrival' (differs by car with one-ways). It does not discuss auth/credential plumbing, quotas, or failure modes for unreachable points, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then parameter constraints, then return shape, then composition guidance — a logical progression with no filler. Line breaks group the parameter rules from the output rules, making it scannable despite covering several topics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description steps in to specify geometry, centroid and bbox. Combined with the exclusivity rule and the departure/arrival distinction, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge behavior (e.g. very large budgets, unreachable islands) and unit expectations are unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 45%, and the domain parameters (lat, lon, mode, minutes, metres, direction) carry no schema descriptions at all — the description compensates by explaining mutual exclusivity of minutes/metres, the 'pied'/'voiture' mode values, and both direction values with their real-world meaning. The plumbing parameters (_org, _group, _run_id, _project, _instance) are left entirely to the schema, which does document them.

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?

The first line names a specific verb+resource ('Reachable-area (isochrone / catchment) polygon around a point, via IGN') and the second restates it operationally ('the travel-time zone one can reach from (lat, lon)'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like foncier_geocode (input prep) and urba_iris (population cross), both of which are named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit rules are given: 'Give EITHER `minutes` OR `metres`, not both', and 'Geocode the address first (foncier_geocode → lat/lon)'. It also states the scope boundary — 'this tool returns one zone; the coverage analysis is the caller's compose step' — and names urba_iris as the downstream join, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is and isn't the answer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?