Skip to main content
Glama

MANA — la vie locale française

by bzh.mana

chercher

Cherche un lieu, un commerce, un artisan, un professionnel de santé, une association ou un événement en France. À appeler pour toute question du type « trouve-moi X près de Y ». Interroge 3 764 277 fiches actives, rangées par CODE NAF de l'INSEE — pas par mots-clés. Accepte aussi un numéro SIRET (14 chiffres) ou SIREN (9). NE REND NI ADRESSE NI TÉLÉPHONE : la granularité s'arrête à la commune.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoTexte libre, ou un numéro SIRET / SIREN
limiteNoDe 1 à 50 (défaut 20)
communeNoCode INSEE (5 caractères). Appeler `commune` pour l'obtenir depuis un nom.
categorieNoUne des 11 catégories. Ne se combine pas avec « q » : le rangement l'emporte sur le texte.
departementNoCode de département, ex. « 29 »
sous_categorieNoEx. « boulange », « kiné », « plombier ». Appeler `catalogue` pour la liste.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important constraints: searching is by INSEE NAF code 'pas par mots-clés', the active-fiche count, acceptance of SIRET/SIREN identifiers, and the decisive limitation 'NE REND NI ADRESSE NI TÉLÉPHONE : la granularité s'arrête à la commune.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, trigger, matching behavior, accepted identifiers, and the key output limitation each earn their place in five short sentences. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, how results are ranked, and the output granularity. It could be stronger by stating what fields are actually returned and how results should be consumed, but the core invocation context is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds high-level semantic context (NAF ranking, no address/phone output) but does not add parameter-by-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Cherche un lieu, un commerce... en France' and gives the canonical user intent 'trouve-moi X près de Y'. It is specific, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'associations' tool even though associations are listed in the same scope.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'À appeler pour toute question du type « trouve-moi X près de Y »' and clarifies acceptable input modes (free text, SIRET/SIREN, categories). However, it does not state when not to use this tool or how it compares to the sibling tools 'associations', 'catalogue', 'commune', and 'missions'.

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

All MANA — la vie locale française 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources