Les associations déclarées d'une commune ou d'un département, avec leur objet social, issues du Répertoire National des Associations. Utile pour « quelle association fait X près de Y » — une question à laquelle aucune autre source ne répond. NE REND PAS DE CONTACT : le RNA n'en publie aucun, délibérément.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Un mot du nom de l'association | |
| limite | No | ||
| commune | No | Code INSEE | |
| departement | No | Code de département |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key limitation (no contact details, deliberately, because the RNA publishes none) and the data source. It does not cover output shape, pagination, rate limits, or freshness, so it is only moderately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is composed of three purposeful sentences, with the scope and use case front-loaded and the contact warning clearly separated. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, source, and a key limitation. However, it omits any explanation of 'limite' and says nothing about the shape of the returned association records, leaving a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents q, commune, and departement, giving 75% coverage. The description reinforces the commune/department scoping and the q concept through the use-case example, but it does not clarify 'limite', which is an undocumented integer. The added value over the schema is modest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific resource (declared associations of a commune or department, with their social purpose, from the RNA) and a concrete use case ('quelle association fait X près de Y'). It lacks an explicit operative verb and does not name or differentiate sibling tools, so it stops short of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit use case: answering 'quelle association fait X près de Y', and asserts this is a question no other source answers. It also gives a clear exclusion: no contact information is returned. It does not name alternatives among siblings such as catalogue, chercher, commune, or missions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: commune code lookup, search, category vocabulary, association registry, and volunteer missions. There is mild overlap between `chercher` and `associations` for finding associations, and between `associations` and `missions` in associative life, but the descriptions draw clear boundaries.
Names are short, lowercase, and readable, with most being French nouns (`associations`, `catalogue`, `commune`, `missions`). However, `chercher` is an infinitive verb, breaking the otherwise mostly nominal pattern; there is no consistent verb_noun or action_noun scheme.
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only French local-life lookup server. Each tool earns its place: a code resolver, a general search, a category helper, an association registry query, and a volunteer-missions feed.
The set covers the main workflows implied by the server's purpose: `chercher` handles local searches, `commune` prepares INSEE codes, `catalogue` guides vocabulary, `associations` answers association questions, and `missions` covers volunteering. Minor gaps exist, such as no detailed view for a single result and no reverse postal-code lookup, but core use cases are supported.