Izifete — prestataires événementiels en France

Server Details

Prestataires événementiels vérifiés en France, par métier et ville — Izifete.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 100.0% over 38 days
Last Tested: 2026-09-24 05:16
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored 2026-09-14 16:51 across 7 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct action: search and fetch retrieve data, afficher_prestataires renders and selects results, creer_demande sends a request, verifier_entreprise checks legal status, and the two conseils tools are explicitly separated by audience. The descriptions actively reinforce boundaries with reciprocal negative instructions, so an agent should not misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes French and English conventions (afficher/creer/verifier vs. search/fetch) and mixes verb_noun names with noun_noun advice names. This is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools cover a focused marketplace workflow without unnecessary redundancy: search, detail, display, request creation, company verification, and two distinct advice channels. This sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 tool range and each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The core user journey is well covered: find providers, view details, display/select, verify a company, send a request, and get targeted advice. The main gap is the post-request lifecycle—there is no way for the user to list, track, or cancel sent requests—but this is a minor gap that does not break the primary workflows.

Available Tools

7 tools

afficher_prestatairesVoir les prestataires en imagesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Après search ou fetch, afficher jusqu'à dix prestataires sous forme de lignes compactes, cinq par page, avec photos publiques dépliables et sélection temporaire locale. Utiliser uniquement les identifiants retournés par ces outils, dans l'ordre de recherche. Ne remplace pas la recherche : aucune disponibilité, proximité, tarification ou qualification supplémentaire n'est vérifiée ici. Aucun e-mail ni demande n'est envoyé. Les fiches sont relues pour retirer les profils devenus non publics. La sélection reste dans la vue, n'est pas une demande et n'est pas enregistrée dans un compte. La vue affiche déjà les photos : ne pas recopier leurs URL dans le texte de conversation.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Un à dix identifiants exacts de prestataires retournés par search ou fetch, dans l'ordre souhaité.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cards`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`unavailableCount`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details: profiles are rechecked to remove non-public ones, selection is temporary and not saved, and photos are already displayed so URLs should not be copied. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational context, though it omits edge cases like error handling.

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 long but every sentence carries meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides constraints, exclusions, and behavioral notes. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and no sentence is redundant. It earns a 4 for being well-organized despite its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is a simple display operation with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all key aspects: what it does, when to use it (after search/fetch), what it does not do, behavioral notes (profile recheck, local selection), and a specific instruction to avoid copying photo URLs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already describes the 'ids' parameter fully (1-10 exact identifiers from search/fetch, in desired order), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint: the order should follow the search order ('dans l'ordre de recherche'), which is more specific than the schema's 'ordre souhaité'. This extra nuance adds value beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 a specific verb ('afficher'), resource ('prestataires'), and the context ('Après search ou fetch'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search by saying it does not replace search and uses only IDs returned by search/fetch. This makes it unambiguous which tool to use for displaying results.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says to use only identifiers returned by search or fetch, and states it is not a substitute for search (no availability, proximity, pricing, or qualification checks). It also specifies what it does not do (no email or request sent) and clarifies the selection is local and not persisted. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

conseils_evenementConseils & budgets pour organiser un événementA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur ORGANISE un événement en France (mariage, anniversaire, baptême, séminaire, soirée) et pose une question de conseil : quel budget prévoir (traiteur, DJ, photographe, lieu…), quelles quantités (boissons, pièces cocktail, taille de salle), quand réserver chaque prestataire, comment choisir un prestataire fiable et éviter les arnaques. Renvoie des repères chiffrés vérifiés issus des données Izifete. N'utilise PAS cet outil pour chercher un prestataire précis (search) ni pour les questions d'un professionnel de l'événementiel (conseils_prestataire).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`question`	Yes	La question de l'utilisateur, ex. « quel budget pour un traiteur de mariage 100 personnes ? », « combien de bouteilles pour 80 invités ? », « quand réserver le lieu ? »

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating it returns verified figures from Izifete data, defines the scope (France, event types), and clarifies it outputs numerical benchmarks. This goes beyond the safety annotations and sets correct expectations.

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 well-structured: it opens with the explicit use case, lists example topics, states the output source, and ends with clear exclusions. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, and the length is justified by the need for differentiation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a simple single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers input expectations, output type, domain scope, and exclusions, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand what to expect.

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?

The only parameter 'question' is already thoroughly described in the schema with examples. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter's format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 provides advice and budget estimates for organizing events in France, with specific resource types (weddings, birthdays, etc.) and topics (budget, quantities, timing, provider selection). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search and conseils_prestataire, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance (when user is organizing an event in France and asking for advice) and when-not-to-use guidance (not for finding specific providers, not for professionals), naming the alternative tools. This fully covers decision-making criteria.

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

conseils_prestataireConseils pour les prestataires événementielsA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur est un PROFESSIONNEL de l'événementiel en France (DJ, traiteur, photographe, fleuriste, décorateur, lieu de réception…) et demande des conseils métier : comment trouver plus de clients, être plus visible en ligne, fixer ses tarifs, faire un devis professionnel, quelles obligations (SIRET, assurance RC pro). Renvoie des conseils concrets issus des données et guides Izifete. N'utilise PAS cet outil pour les questions d'un particulier qui organise un événement (conseils_evenement) ni pour créer un profil ou une demande.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`question`	Yes	La question du professionnel, ex. « comment trouver plus de clients quand on est DJ ? », « comment faire un devis pro ? », « faut-il un SIRET ? »

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond annotations by stating the advice is 'conseils concrets issus des données et guides Izifete.' It does not contradict annotations and provides some context about the output source and nature, though it could mention limitations (e.g., no legal guarantee). Overall, it adds value beyond the structured metadata.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage condition. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the audience, listing example topics, stating the output source, and providing exclusions with alternative tools. No redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description fully covers it: when to use, what it does, what it returns, and when not to use. It includes targets audience, example queries, and exclusions. No missing critical context for correct invocation.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 'question' with a clear description and min/max lengths. The tool description adds value by providing specific example questions and reiterating the expected domain. This extra context helps the agent formulate valid queries, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing business advice to French event industry professionals (DJ, caterer, photographer, etc.). It specifies the exact audience (PROFESSIONNEL de l'événementiel) and the type of queries (finding clients, pricing, legal obligations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like conseils_evenement, which serves individuals.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur est un PROFESSIONNEL...') and lists concrete example questions. It also explicitly says when NOT to use it, naming the alternative tool (conseils_evenement) and other excluded cases (creating a profile or request). This is exemplary guidance.

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

creer_demandeDemander un devis à un prestataireAInspect

Connexion à un compte Izifete requise ; l'email vérifié du compte est utilisé. Utilise cet outil UNIQUEMENT après que l'utilisateur a explicitement choisi un prestataire (via search/fetch) ET confirmé vouloir lui envoyer une demande de devis gratuite. Crée une demande ciblée (type d'événement, ville, date, budget indicatif, message) qui est relue par l'équipe Izifete avant transmission au prestataire. Demande toujours confirmation à l'utilisateur avant d'appeler cet outil. Aucune donnée de paiement n'est collectée. N'utilise pas cet outil pour rechercher (search), afficher une fiche (fetch) ou vérifier une entreprise (verifier_entreprise).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes	Ville de l'événement
`budget`	No	Budget indicatif (optionnel, ex. « 1500 € »)
`guests`	Yes	Nombre d'invités estimé
`message`	No	Précisions de l'utilisateur pour le prestataire (optionnel)
`event_date`	Yes	Date de l'événement (ex. « 2026-09-14 » ou « 14 septembre 2026 »)
`event_type`	Yes	Type d'événement : mariage, anniversaire, séminaire, baptême, soirée…
`client_name`	Yes	Nom (ou prénom) de l'utilisateur qui fait la demande
`postal_code`	No	Code postal (optionnel)
`provider_id`	Yes	Identifiant du prestataire choisi (renvoyé par search/fetch)
`client_email`	No	Renseigné automatiquement depuis le compte OAuth vérifié. Ne demande jamais cette adresse à l'utilisateur.
`client_phone`	No	Téléphone de l'utilisateur (optionnel)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses account/login requirements, the verification email usage, that the request is reviewed by the Izifete team before transmission, and that no payment data is collected. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured and front-loaded with the critical prerequisite. Each sentence serves a purpose (prerequisite, action, review process, confirmation, exclusions). Minor redundancy exists, but it remains concise for the complexity.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, creation workflow, review process, exclusions, and account requirements. It does not explicitly state what the function returns after a successful call, but the absence of an output schema and the described handoff to Izifete provide sufficient context for most scenarios.

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 coverage is 100% with every parameter described. The description mentions some fields (event type, city, date, budget, message) in passing but adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a targeted quote request ('Crée une demande ciblée') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly excluding search, fetch, and verifier_entreprise. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage conditions: use only after the user has selected a provider and confirmed, always ask for confirmation before calling, and lists what the tool is NOT for (search, fetch, verifier_entreprise). This is exemplary guidance.

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

fetchVoir la fiche d'un prestataireA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur veut les détails d'un prestataire Izifete précis, à partir de son identifiant obtenu via search. Renvoie ses métiers, sa ville, sa note, sa description et le lien de sa fiche izifete.fr. N'utilise PAS cet outil pour rechercher plusieurs prestataires (search) ni pour envoyer une demande (creer_demande).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant du prestataire renvoyé par search

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('Renvoie ses métiers, sa ville, sa note, sa description et le lien de sa fiche izifete.fr') and the prerequisite that the ID must come from a prior search. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, using three sentences that each serve a purpose: when to use, what it returns, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the main usage directive and contains no filler or unnecessary details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the input source, return fields, and exclusions, and is aligned with annotations. There are no significant gaps for an agent to misuse this 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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' with the description 'Identifiant du prestataire renvoyé par search' (100% coverage). The tool description repeats this same information ('à partir de son identifiant obtenu via search'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool fetches details of a specific Izifete provider using an ID from search: 'Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur veut les détails d'un prestataire Izifete précis, à partir de son identifiant obtenu via search.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by excluding search (search) and request creation (creer_demande).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('quand l'utilisateur veut les détails d'un prestataire précis') and when-not-to-use guidance ('N'utilise PAS cet outil pour rechercher plusieurs prestataires (search) ni pour envoyer une demande (creer_demande)'), clearly differentiating from alternatives.

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

searchRechercher des prestatairesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur cherche un prestataire pour un événement en France ou à Monaco (mariage, anniversaire, séminaire, baptême, soirée), par métier et par ville. Renvoie une liste de prestataires vérifiés (traiteur, DJ, photographe, lieu de réception, fleuriste, décorateur, animation…) avec leur ville, leur couverture déclarée, leur note et le lien de leur fiche. N'utilise PAS cet outil pour vérifier une entreprise (verifier_entreprise), afficher une fiche détaillée (fetch) ou envoyer une demande (creer_demande). Périmètre : France et Monaco.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Métier + ville recherchés, ex. « DJ mariage Lyon », « traiteur Paris », « photographe Bordeaux »

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`location`	Yes
`providers`	Yes
`results_count`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a list of verified providers with their city, coverage, rating, and profile link, giving insight into the output format beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or edge cases, so it is not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then the return value, and finally the negative usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the most critical information for decision-making.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output schema), the description is complete. It covers the scope (France/Monaco), the return value (list of providers with fields), and the exclusion of other tools. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The single parameter 'query' has a clear description in the schema: 'Métier + ville recherchés' with concrete examples. The description further reinforces the meaning by mentioning 'by trade and by city'. This provides rich semantic context for the parameter, well beyond a minimal label.

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's purpose: to search for event providers by trade and city. It uses a specific verb ('chercher') and resource ('prestataires'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by listing what it is NOT for (verifying a company, fetching a profile, sending a request). This allows an agent to accurately select it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage instructions: use when the user is looking for a provider for an event, and explicitly list when NOT to use (verify_entreprise, fetch, creer_demande). This gives clear positive and negative guidance, making the tool's applicability unambiguous.

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

verifier_entrepriseVérifier une entreprise (SIRET)A

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur veut vérifier la fiabilité d'une entreprise française à partir de son numéro SIRET ou SIREN, via les données publiques officielles (recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr). Renvoie la raison sociale, l'adresse et le statut (active ou fermée). Aucune donnée n'est modifiée. N'utilise PAS cet outil pour rechercher des prestataires (search). France uniquement.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siret`	Yes	Numéro SIRET (14 chiffres) ou SIREN (9 chiffres), espaces tolérés

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces 'Aucune donnée n'est modifiée' and adds concrete context: the data source (recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr), the geographic scope (France), and the fact that it returns official public data. This 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is efficiently written with each sentence contributing meaningful guidance: when to use, what it returns, safety confirmation, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: purpose, data source, return content, non-destructive behavior, non-usage cases, and geographic scope. The agent has all needed information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'siret', including pattern, length constraints, and a clear description of allowed SIRET/SIREN formats. The tool description adds no extra parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: verifying the reliability of a French company using a SIRET/SIREN number via official public data. It specifies the return fields (raison sociale, adresse, statut) and explicitly distinguishes from the search tool used for finding providers.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur veut vérifier la fiabilité d'une entreprise française' and provides a clear exclusion: 'N'utilise PAS cet outil pour rechercher des prestataires (search).' This directly addresses alternatives among siblings.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateSep 14, 2026
- Addedafficher_prestataires

1 tool updateAug 22, 2026

Changedsearch1 field changed

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "location": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "providers": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "business_name": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "city": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "coverage": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "enum": [
+                  "declared_zone",
+                  "nationwide"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Couverture déclarée par le prestataire : zone choisie ou France entière ; aucune distance calculée"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "format": "uri",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "business_name",
+          "city",
+          "coverage",
+          "url"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "results_count": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "const": "izifete",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "outside_coverage",
+        "out_of_scope_trade",
+        "ok",
+        "nearby",
+        "distant_only",
+        "empty"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "source",
+    "status",
+    "location",
+    "results_count",
+    "providers"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

1 tool updateAug 9, 2026

Changedcreer_demande2 fields changed

changedInput schema / properties / client_email / description

Previous value: -"Email de contact de l'utilisateur (obligatoire pour recevoir une réponse)"New value: +"Renseigné automatiquement depuis le compte OAuth vérifié. Ne demande jamais cette adresse à l'utilisateur."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "provider_id",
-  "event_type",
-  "event_date",
-  "guests",
-  "city",
-  "client_name",
-  "client_email"
-]New value: +[
+  "provider_id",
+  "event_type",
+  "event_date",
+  "guests",
+  "city",
+  "client_name"
+]

6 tool updatesAug 6, 2026
- Changedconseils_evenement2 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / question / maxLength
```
Added value: +1000
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / question / minLength
```
Added value: +3
```
- Changedconseils_prestataire2 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / question / maxLength
```
Added value: +1000
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / question / minLength
```
Added value: +3
```
- Changedcreer_demande15 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / budget / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / city / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / city / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / client_email / maxLength
```
Added value: +254
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / client_name / maxLength
```
Added value: +120
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / client_name / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / client_phone / maxLength
```
Added value: +40
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / event_date / maxLength
```
Added value: +80
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / event_date / minLength
```
Added value: +4
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / event_type / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / event_type / minLength
```
Added value: +2
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / message / maxLength
```
Added value: +2000
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / postal_code / maxLength
```
Added value: +12
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / provider_id / maxLength
```
Added value: +128
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / provider_id / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- Changedfetch2 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
```
Added value: +128
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- Changedsearch2 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Added value: +200
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / query / minLength
```
Added value: +2
```
- Changedverifier_entreprise3 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / siret / maxLength
```
Added value: +20
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / siret / minLength
```
Added value: +9
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / siret / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[0-9 ]+$"
```
2 tool updatesAug 4, 2026
- Addedconseils_evenement
- Addedconseils_prestataire
1 tool updateJul 15, 2026
- Changedcreer_demande5 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / client_email / format
```
Added value: +"email"
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / client_email / pattern
```
Added value: +"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / guests / maximum
```
Added value: +100000
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / guests / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
  - changedInput schema / properties / guests / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```
4 tool updatesJul 15, 2026
- First observedcreer_demande
- First observedfetch
- First observedsearch
- First observedverifier_entreprise

Related MCP Connectors

MANA — la vie locale française A
bzh.mana
Lieux, commerces, artisans et associations en France — 3,7 M de fiches, rangées par code NAF.
Location Services Open Data Search
51
Projet Ariane — Orientation A
fr.projet-ariane
Orientation en France : métiers, formations, Parcoursup, écoles, aides, offres. Sources officielles.
Education & Learning Tools Government Data
131
Pionra A
world.pionra
Guides, housing, jobs, events and communities for foreigners living in France, in 6 languages.
Search
81
toolzy A
io.toolzy
Recherche et location d'outils entre particuliers en France via Toolzy.
E-commerce & Retail Location Services
32

Related MCP Servers

RenooLab MCP
Search
mehdimicra
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables users to find and contact building tradespeople in France, and lets independent tradespeople create free profiles.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-23 14:49 UTC)
Apache 2.0
Eventflare MCP
Search Location Services
mluckx
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Search 8,000+ corporate event venues across 40+ cities. Tools for venue search by capacity/category, pricing guides, expert advice articles, and inquiry handoff. Read-only, PII-redacted, UTM-attributed.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-05-05 18:39 UTC)
7
4 npm
MIT
aisle-wedding-mcp
Travel & Transportation E-commerce & Retail
Nunya-design
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Search destination wedding venues and vendors worldwide with Aisle. 10 tools for AI-assisted wedding planning: Venue Search: Find wedding venues by country, type (villa, beach, castle, resort), capacity, and budget. Covers 20+ countries. Vendor Search: Browse wedding photographers, florists, planners, DJs, caterers, and 10 more categories by location and price range. Budget Estimator: Get a detai
Updated 3 months ago (2026-07-01 21:54 UTC)
-
Nightlife Search
Search Entertainment & Media
alcylu
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Provides music events, concerts, music festivals, nightclubs and other events information.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-27 04:04 UTC)
17
2
MIT

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

Need Help?