Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

foncier_site_app

Rendered SITE sheet for a French address (MCP App / interactive card).

Visual flagship variant of foncier_geocode + foncier_parcelle + foncier_bati: geocodes the address (BAN), resolves the cadastral parcel and built footprint, and renders ONE card — canonical address, parcel id/section/number, area (contenance), real CES, buildings. Use when the user wants to see a parcel/ site summary. For raw JSON, use the individual foncier_* tools.

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": {
      "adresse": "<adresse>"
    },
    "name": "foncier_site_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE 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.
adresseYesfree-form address (e.g. "44 la canebière marseille").
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavior: this is an MCP App that renders an interactive card rather than returning data, and it enumerates what the card contains (canonical address, parcel id/section/number, contenance, real CES, buildings). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior when the address cannot be geocoded, 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and the composite relationship, then the routing guidance. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides ('MCP App / interactive card', 'contenance'), but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the card's contents, so an agent knows what comes back. For a single-required-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/fallback behavior for unresolvable addresses is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the oto plumbing fields (_org, _group, _run_id, _project, _instance). The description adds only that the address is geocoded via BAN, which is marginal meaning beyond the schema's own example. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rendered SITE sheet for a French address') and immediately positions it as the visual composite of foncier_geocode + foncier_parcelle + foncier_bati. An agent can distinguish it from foncier_site and the individual foncier_* tools without opening any schema.

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 routing: 'Use when the user wants to *see* a parcel/site summary' and 'For raw JSON, use the individual foncier_* tools.' Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
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