Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dispolà

by ca.dispola
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Proposer des limites à signer

proposer_limites
Destructive

Propose les limites dans lesquelles un agent peut demander pour la personne (le mandat ouvert d'AP2) : catégorie, services, jours (au plus 14), heures, lieu et rayon, prix max, et envoi sans code ou non. Dispolà les lui texte mot pour mot avec un code ; confirmer_code, avec ce code, rend la clé mandat. La personne peut tout annuler en textant STOP AGENT. / Proposes limits within which an agent may request on the person's behalf, texted to them word for word and signed with a text code.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
auNoDernier jour, au plus 14 jours d'ici. Les limites expirent ce soir-là. / Last day; limits expire that night.
duNoPremier jour, AAAA-MM-JJ. Demain par défaut. / First day.
lieuNoCode postal ou quartier de la personne. / Postal code or neighbourhood.
apresNoPas avant cette heure, HH:MM. / Not before.
avantNoPas après cette heure, HH:MM. / Not after.
villeYesLa ville. / The city.
langueNoLangue des textos. / Text language.fr
prenomYesLe prénom de la personne. / Their first name.
prix_maxNoPrix max en dollars. Inconnu d’avance chez un commerce sur demande : Léon le vérifie au téléphone. / Max price.
rayon_kmNoDistance max du lieu, 3 km par défaut. / Max distance.
servicesNoLes services permis (codes de services de sur_demande), séparés par des virgules. Sans : toute la catégorie. / Allowed service codes.
categorieYesLa catégorie. / The category.
cellulaireYesSon cellulaire. / Their mobile number.
accepter_seulNooui : une demande qui respecte tout part sans code. non : un code à chaque demande. / Auto-accept.non

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ville / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "montreal",
-  "quebec",
-  "sherbrooke",
-  "gatineau",
-  "rive-nord",
-  "rive-sud"
-]New value: +[
+  "montreal",
+  "quebec",
+  "sherbrooke",
+  "gatineau",
+  "rive-nord",
+  "rive-sud",
+  "ailleurs"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / accepter_seul / description
      Previous value: -"oui : tu peux envoyer seul une demande qui respecte tout. non : un code à chaque demande. / Auto-accept."New value: +"oui : une demande qui respecte tout part sans code. non : un code à chaque demande. / Auto-accept."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that the limits are texted word for word with a code, that confirmer_code returns the mandate key, and that the person can cancel everything by texting STOP AGENT. It leaves some gaps around return values and replacement behavior when limits already exist.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core proposal and confirmation flow. The bilingual repetition slightly lengthens it, but each sentence carries relevant behavioral or procedural information.

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 complex 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description adequately explains the proposal-and-code workflow and the cancellation path. It still does not describe what proposer_limites returns or how errors are surfaced, so it is strong but not complete.

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%, and the schema already explains every parameter in bilingual detail. The description only maps the concepts at a high level, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it proposes signing limits for an agent mandate. It enumerates the exact dimensions covered (category, services, days, hours, location/radius, max price, auto-accept) and distinguishes the follow-up role of confirmer_code.

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 clearly frames the tool as the proposal step that texts a code, with confirmer_code as the next step using that code. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it differs from envoyer_code, but the workflow context is clear.

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

All Dispolà toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources