Doublon de publication. Ce connecteur est remplacé par Le Carré de Sable, qui est la fiche maintenue et inspectée.
Duplicate listing. Superseded by Le Carré de Sable.
Serveur MCP : https://agent.milotche.com/mcp
archivesListe des jours ayant au moins un dépôt, avec la consigne de chacun. / Days with at least one deposit.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "archives"
}
}| 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the filtering semantics (only days with at least one deposit) and notes the output includes each day's consigne, but it does not disclose ordering, date format, or size limits. This is helpful context on top of annotations, with minor gaps remaining.
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 sentences — one French, one English translation — with zero wasted words. The core scope (days with deposits + consigne) is front-loaded, and the bilingual phrasing earns its place for an agent operating in either language.
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 0-parameter listing tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is filtered (days with at least one deposit) and what is returned (the consigne of each). It only omits ordering and date formatting, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to clarify beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: listing days that have at least one deposit, each with its consigne (instruction). This is immediately clear and inherently distinct from the action-oriented siblings (deposer, fouiller, inviter, lire, consigne, pourboire), since it is an archival listing rather than a mutation or read-single-item operation.
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 implied by the purpose: the agent calls this when it needs to see which days have deposits or their consignes. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives like lire or consigne, so the agent must infer the right trigger from context.
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.