Skip to main content
Glama

Edifiable

by fr.edifiable
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Regles d'urbanisme applicables a une rue en France

get_french_urbanism_rules_for_street
Read-onlyIdempotent

La zone du plan local d'urbanisme au droit d'une rue francaise et ce que le reglement en dit : les regles du chapitre avec les cas propres au secteur en avant, ce que le plan graphique impose ici, les autres zones que la voie longe a 120 m, les prescriptions et servitudes dessinees autour, les pieces du permis que le terrain declenche. Meme texte que le jumeau .md de la page de rue. Avec le numero de rue : le terrain de ce numero - ses parcelles cadastrales reunies, ce qui les reunit, la zone lue a son contour et les chiffres du reglement ramenes a lui.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voieYesNom de la voie en toutes lettres, par exemple « avenue Jacques Douzans ».
numeroNoLe numero dans la voie, par exemple « 22 » ou « 12 bis » : rend le terrain de ce numero. Sans lui, la voie au point.
code_inseeYesCode INSEE de la commune, cinq caracteres, par exemple 31395 (Muret).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / numero
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Le numero dans la voie, par exemple « 22 » ou « 12 bis » : rend le terrain de ce numero. Sans lui, la voie au point.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, which the description aligns with. However, the description does not add behavioral context beyond these hints; it does not mention output format, whether the tool may return partial data for incomplete addresses, or that it matches the 'twin .md' text of the street page. The openWorldHint suggests data may change, but the description does not explicitly warn about dynamic data.

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 concise but dense, packed with details in two long sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then expands on optional scoping. However, the second sentence is somewhat run-on and could be clearer with better punctuation, but it remains efficient and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema (unknown return structure), the description could explain what the output looks like (e.g., text, structured data) and note that it mirrors the street page's .md format. It also doesn't clarify how the 120m radius is used or how far the 'prescriptions' extend. However, given the tool's complexity, the description covers many aspects (zone, reglement, plan, prescriptions, pieces), but lacks explicit guidance on output and potential edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides excellent descriptions for 'voie' and 'code_insee', but the description adds meaning for 'numero' by explaining that it scopes to a specific plot and aggregates cadastral parcels. For 'voie', the description reiterates the schema's example of 'avenue Jacques Douzans', but reinforces the requirement for full spelling. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's added value on parameters is moderate, but it does clarify the optional 'numero' behavior.

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 clearly states the tool returns the urban planning rules for a French street, including the zone, graphical plan constraints, nearby zones at 120m, prescriptions, and permit pieces. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the 'rue' context and the optional street number that scopes to a specific plot.

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?

The description explains that without a street number, the tool returns the rules for the street point, and with a number it returns the specific plot's rules. It implies a use case (getting urbanism rules for a street) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_french_urbanism_zone_rules or search_french_urbanism_regulation.

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

All Edifiable 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