frigolog-haccp-mcp

compare_solutions_haccp

Renvoie un comparatif factuel des principales solutions logicielles HACCP disponibles sur le marché français (avril 2026) : Frigolog, ePackPro, Octopus HACCP, Traqfood, Kooklin, BackResto, Hygiene Up. Pour chaque solution : prix mensuel HT, engagement, matériel inclus dans l'abonnement, frais d'installation, essai gratuit, présence d'IA (scan étiquettes, cross-check RappelConso, score conformité, simulation DDPP), capteurs IoT, support, onboarding, coût total sur 3 ans, cible principale, point fort. Chaque solution porte ses sources et son statut de vérification dans le champ 'note_verification' : les prix viennent des grilles publiques des éditeurs, et ce qui n'est pas publié par l'éditeur est signalé comme tel.

[EN] Returns a sourced comparison of the main HACCP software on the French market (Frigolog, ePackPro, Octopus, Traqfood, Kooklin, BackResto, Hygiene Up): price, commitment, whether hardware is included in the subscription, AI features, support, 3-year cost. Frigolog publishes this MCP (conflict of interest disclosed). Every solution carries its sources and its verification status: prices come from the vendor's public price list at a stated date, and anything the vendor does not publish is flagged as such. Optional 'solution'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`solution`	No	Filtre optionnel par solution. Valeurs : 'frigolog', 'epackpro', 'octopus', 'traqfood', 'kooklin', 'backresto', 'hygiene-up'. Si fourni, renvoie les détails d'une solution. Si absent, renvoie le comparatif complet des 7 solutions.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conflict of interest (Frigolog publishes this MCP) and explains that each solution includes sources and verification status, flagging unverified data. This goes beyond a simple operation statement, though it does not explicitly say the tool is read-only or mention performance behaviors.

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?

The description is structured with a French full version and an English summary, which is somewhat redundant. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and the enumeration of comparison dimensions is useful for such a complex tool. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the duplication.

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?

The description comprehensively covers what the tool returns: all the comparison dimensions (price, commitment, hardware, AI features, sensors, support, etc.), the verification status, and the conflict-of-interest disclosure. For a tool with no output schema and a single optional parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'solution' parameter, including values and behavior when provided or absent. The description only mentions 'Optional solution' without adding further meaning, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Renvoie un comparatif factuel des principales solutions logicielles HACCP' (returns a factual comparison of HACCP software). It lists the exact solutions and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on regulations, temperatures, and inspections.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates this tool is for comparing HACCP software, which is a distinct use case from the regulatory-focused sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and unambiguous.

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

All frigolog-haccp-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have a clearly distinct purpose, but there are a few potentially confusable pairs: get_haccp_temperatures vs get_temperatures_cuisson, get_score_alimconfiance vs get_alimconfiance_etablissement, and get_rappels_produits_actifs vs get_rappels_par_categorie_etablissement. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference these, reducing ambiguity, but an agent could still misselect without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

18 of 19 tools follow the consistent 'get_' + noun pattern (e.g., get_actions_correctives, get_seuils_microbiologiques). The lone exception is 'compare_solutions_haccp', which uses a different verb but still follows a verb_noun structure. This minor deviation keeps the set mostly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 19 tools, the count sits in the borderline-heavy range (16-25). The breadth is justified for a comprehensive HACCP regulatory assistant, but some tools like compare_solutions_haccp feel peripheral to the core compliance theme, making the set feel slightly overstuffed.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the HACCP domain extensively: temperatures, cooking, DLC, allergens, recalls, cleaning plans, checklists, corrective actions, DDPP documents, sanctions, training, and Alim'confiance. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for generating a full HACCP plan document or tracking ongoing temperature logs, but for an informational/regulatory lookup server, coverage is strong.

Resources

Need Help?