frigolog-haccp-mcp

get_documents_controle_ddpp

Renvoie la liste des documents que l'inspecteur DDPP (Direction Départementale de la Protection des Populations) peut demander lors d'un contrôle sanitaire en France, par type d'établissement. Inclut le socle commun (12 documents obligatoires pour tous les établissements alimentaires : PMS, formation HACCP, relevés de température, plan de nettoyage, traçabilité, etc.) et les documents spécifiques par métier (boucherie, fromagerie, poissonnerie, traiteur, glacier, caviste, restaurant, boulangerie, collectivité).

[EN] Returns the documents a French DDPP inspector may request during a sanitary inspection, by establishment type (the 12-document common base + business-specific documents). Optional 'type_etablissement'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type_etablissement`	No	Filtre optionnel par type d'établissement. Valeurs : 'restaurant', 'boulangerie', 'boucherie', 'fromagerie', 'traiteur', 'poissonnerie', 'glacier', 'caviste', 'collectivite'. Si fourni, renvoie le socle commun + les documents spécifiques au métier. Si absent, renvoie tous les documents.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Renvoie la liste' and describes the content of the returned list (common base + specific docs). It also explains the effect of the optional parameter. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple getter, this is sufficient.

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 bilingual (French + English), adding redundancy but remains structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes useful examples of documents, which adds value despite some extra length.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the purpose, the filter behavior, and the content types (12 documents, business types). It does not detail the return format, but for a list-returning tool, the description is adequate.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, including filter and absence behavior. The tool description only repeats the optional parameter name at the end, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool returns a list of documents for DDPP sanitary inspections in France, by establishment type. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on the full document list, including the 12-document common base and business-specific documents.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when needing DDPP inspection documents. It explains the optional parameter behavior (filtered vs. unfiltered) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The scope is well-defined and the use case is unmistakable.

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?