Skip to main content
Glama

frigolog-haccp-mcp

by app.vercel.frigologmcp

get_score_alimconfiance

Retourne le fonctionnement complet du score Alim'confiance, dispositif officiel de publication des résultats d'inspection sanitaire DDPP en France depuis avril 2017 (alim-confiance.gouv.fr). Détaille les 4 niveaux de notation (très satisfaisant, satisfaisant, à améliorer, à corriger de manière urgente), les 6 critères d'évaluation, la fréquence des inspections (3 à 7 ans en moyenne), et les actions concrètes pour améliorer son score lors d'un contrôle officiel. Pour récupérer le score d'un établissement précis, utilisez get_alimconfiance_etablissement.

[EN] Explains how France's official Alim'confiance sanitary-inspection scoring works (4 levels, 6 criteria, inspection frequency, how to improve). For one establishment's score, use get_alimconfiance_etablissement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the nature of the tool: it returns an explanatory overview of the scoring system, including specific content areas. It also provides context about the official source and date. There is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a helpful pointer to the sibling tool. However, the bilingual repetition (French and English) makes it longer than necessary, though the repeated information is condensed in English.

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 is complete for a no-parameter informational tool: it lists the key topics covered, gives the official context, and provides an alternative for specific queries. No output schema exists, but the description adequately sets expectations.

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?

The tool takes no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 uses the verb 'Retourne' and specifies the resource ('le fonctionnement complet du score Alim'confiance'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool for retrieving a specific establishment's score. It explicitly states what the tool provides (4 levels, 6 criteria, frequency, actions).

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?

It explicitly states an alternative: 'Pour récupérer le score d'un établissement précis, utilisez get_alimconfiance_etablissement,' and the description's scope implies when to use this tool (general info). This is clear guidance.

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 toolsInspect
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