Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fr_accords_get

Read-only

Fetch a single company agreement by its DILA id (ACCOTEXT…) or numero (T…).

Returns METADATA (who, when, themes, branch…). The body text is NOT in the local index — it is fetched per act from Légifrance, so ask for it with include_text=True (or call fr_accords_text, which also paginates long agreements). Without that, this tool cannot tell you what an agreement SAYS — and what it says is often the point: theme codes are declarative and incomplete (cf. fr_accords_search), so a health clause is regularly found only by reading.

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": {
      "id_or_numero": "<id_or_numero>"
    },
    "name": "fr_accords_get"
  }
}

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.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
id_or_numeroYesDILA identifier (ACCOTEXT000…) or deposit number (T…).
include_textNoalso fetch the full text (one Légifrance call). Long agreements come back truncated here — `texte_tronque`=true means use `fr_accords_text(acco_id, offset=…)` to walk the rest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantive hidden behavior: the body is not in the local index, retrieval triggers a per-act Légifrance call, and long texts return truncated with `texte_tronque` signaling. That is exactly the kind of cost and side-effect context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 identifier contract and then the metadata-vs-body distinction, which is the right order. Slightly editorial in places ('and what it says is often the point', the inline 'cf. fr_accords_search'), costing a little tightness but not clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description still characterizes the return payload (who, when, themes, branch) and its truncation flag, and covers the external-call implication. For a single-record read tool with readOnly annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the practical consequence of `include_text` (extra external call, possible truncation, and which sibling to use to walk the remainder). It does not restate the identifier formats beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Fetch a single company agreement') plus the two accepted identifier forms (DILA ACCOTEXT… / deposit number T…), which immediately separates it from the sibling search tool fr_accords_search.

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?

Explicitly says what this tool covers (metadata only), what it does not cover (body text), and routes the agent to two alternatives: `include_text=True` on this call or `fr_accords_text` for paginated reading of long agreements. It even explains the downstream condition (theme codes are incomplete, so reading is often required).

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