Skip to main content
Glama

Edifiable

by fr.edifiable

Regles d'urbanisme d'une zone en France

get_french_urbanism_zone_rules
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ce qu'une zone d'un plan local d'urbanisme francais autorise. Quand la commune est compilee, les regles en clair - hauteur, emprise, reculs, stationnement, espaces verts - chacune avec sa valeur, la condition qui la declenche et la phrase du reglement qui la porte ; puis le texte integral des articles de la zone. Meme texte que le jumeau .md de la page de zone. Un document qui ne suit pas la numerotation attendue rend zero article, et l'outil le dit plutot que de deviner.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zoneYesCode de zone du plan local d'urbanisme, par exemple UA, UB, AU, A ou N.
code_inseeYesCode INSEE de la commune, cinq caracteres, par exemple 31395 (Muret).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by describing the output structure, the equivalence with the .md twin, and the failure mode where a document with unexpected numbering returns zero articles and says so instead of guessing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured: purpose first, then output composition, then the twin-document equivalence, then the failure behavior. Every sentence adds distinct useful information with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive: clear rules with value, condition, and regulation text, followed by full articles. It also covers an important edge case. It does not describe behavior when the commune is not compiled, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple two-parameter read-only tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both code_insee and zone fully documented including examples and a pattern. The description adds domain context about rule categories, but no parameter-level semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence clearly states that the tool returns what a zone of a French PLU authorizes, with a specific verb and resource. It is obviously zone-scoped and distinguishes itself from street-level or search siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need zone-level urbanism rules and the commune is compiled. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with get_french_urbanism_rules_for_street or search_french_urbanism_regulation, so the routing guidance is left mostly to inference.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct entry point: permit checklist, street-level rules, zone-level rules, and full-text search. The street and zone tools are the closest pair, but their descriptions clearly separate 'along a street' from 'for a zone', so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case with a get_french_* / search_french_* prefix that clearly signals the domain. The consistent 'french_urbanism' block in three tools and 'french_building_permit' for the checklist makes the resource being queried predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a reasonable, focused size for a read-only French urbanism/permits domain. Each tool covers a distinct query mode, and none feels redundant or decorative.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main ways to consult French urbanism rules: by street, by zone, and by keyword search, plus the permit-pieces checklist. There are minor gaps such as no direct parcel/address-to-zone lookup or non-individual-house permit variants, but agents can usually route through street or search tools.

Resources