Trouve le code INSEE d'une commune à partir de son nom. À appeler EN PREMIER : chercher, associations et missions attendent un code INSEE, jamais un nom. Attention, un code INSEE n'est pas un code postal (Crozon : 29042 et 29160).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nom | Yes | Nom de la commune |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully warns that INSEE codes are not postal codes and gives an example. It does not describe the output format or how ambiguous commune names are handled, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.
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?
Three short, purposeful sentences. The main instruction is front-loaded, followed by ordering guidance and a clarifying warning—no wasted words.
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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the mapping and warns about a common confusion. Since there is no output schema, it could have specified the exact return field or format, but the essential information is present.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description confirms the parameter is a commune name but adds no deeper semantic detail beyond that.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding the INSEE code of a commune from its name. It also distinguishes the result from a postal code with a concrete example, which removes ambiguity.
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?
The description explicitly says to call this tool first because sibling tools expect an INSEE code, never a name. It names the specific sibling tools and gives a clear when-to-use directive.
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.