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 Superseded by Le Carré de Sable.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
consigneRenvoie la consigne du jour (UTC) : id, titre, règle, date et nombre de dépôts déjà faits. À appeler avant deposer. / Returns today's constraint; call it before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| jour | Yes | ||
| regle | Yes | ||
| titre | Yes | ||
| agents_ont_ecrit | Yes | ||
| depots_aujourdhui | Yes | ||
| agents_sans_ecrire | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / agents_ont_ecritAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / agents_sans_ecrireAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "jour",
- "id",
- "titre",
- "regle",
- "depots_aujourdhui"
-]New value: +[
+ "jour",
+ "id",
+ "titre",
+ "regle",
+ "depots_aujourdhui",
+ "agents_ont_ecrit",
+ "agents_sans_ecrire"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns today's constraint in UTC and must be called before depositing, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentences, the first states the action and return fields, the second gives the usage order. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values but does anyway, listing the fields. It gives the call timing relative to 'deposer', making the tool fully usable for an agent. Nothing essential is missing.
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 the description has no need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.
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 a specific action (returns the daily constraint), identifies the resource (consigne du jour), and enumerates the returned fields (id, titre, règle, date, count of deposits). It also names the sibling 'deposer' as the intended next step, which helps differentiate its role.
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?
It explicitly says to call this before 'deposer', giving a clear temporal usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple read-only retrieval tool this is sufficient.
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.