resume_semaineNumber of building permit applications of the last 7 days, by canton and by trade. / Le nombre de demandes de permis de construire des 7 derniers jours, par canton et par métier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canton | No | Two-letter canton code, e.g. "VS". / Sigle du canton, par exemple « VS ». | |
| langue | No | Language of labels and of the answer (fr, de, it, en). / Langue des libellés et de la réponse. | fr |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds the aggregation window (last 7 days) and grouping dimensions (canton and trade), but it does not state what happens when canton is omitted or what the returned counts look like.
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?
Two short bilingual sentences deliver the purpose, timeframe, and grouping with no filler. The English/French duplication is purposeful for a bilingual tool and does not obscure the core statement.
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 low-complexity read-only aggregate with rich annotations and fully described simple parameters, the description covers what is counted, the time window, and the grouping dimensions. The remaining gap is the omitted behavior when no canton is supplied, which the description could state explicitly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents canton's two-letter pattern and langue's enum and default. The description reinforces that results can be grouped by canton, but it does not explain the optional canton parameter's default behavior or langue's effect beyond the schema text.
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 specifies a concrete aggregation: counts of building permit applications over the last 7 days, grouped by canton and trade. That is clear enough to distinguish a weekly summary from a detailed search, but it never names siblings like chercher_demandes or explains why to choose this weekly aggregate over them.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'last 7 days' scope implies a weekly-summary use case, but the agent is left to infer usage rather than being told when to select this tool instead of alternatives.
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.