list_legal_formsListe les formes juridiques françaises (micro-entreprise, EI, EURL, SASU, SARL, SAS, SCI, association...) avec le nombre d'associés, la responsabilité, le régime social du dirigeant, à qui elles conviennent et les frais légaux obligatoires de création.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by specifying what the call yields (associates count, liability, social regime, suitability, mandatory creation fees), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not state ordering or total count, a minor omission.
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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with verb and resource. The trailing enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item earns its place by describing output the agent cannot otherwise see. Slightly run-on but efficient.
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?
With no input parameters, a fully annotated read-only profile, and no output schema, the description must carry the return-content burden and it does so by naming the attributes returned. Only the ordering/length of the returned catalog is left unstated, which is minor for a static reference list.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs. Nothing in the description suggests configurable filtering that would create false expectations about a parameterless call.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Liste les formes juridiques françaises') and enumerates both concrete examples (micro-entreprise, EURL, SASU...) and the attributes returned (associés, responsabilité, régime social, frais légaux). This makes the tool's output unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the siblings compare_offers/get_provider, but the resource domain is plainly distinct.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a reference/catalog lookup for legal form definitions, but there is no statement of when to call it versus compare_offers or get_provider, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. For such a simple read-only catalog tool that is adequate, but it leaves routing to inference.
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.