Izifete — prestataires événementiels en France
Server Details
Prestataires événementiels vérifiés en France, par métier et ville — Izifete.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search for finding providers, fetch for details, creer_demande for sending requests, and verifier_entreprise for checking company reliability. No overlap.
All names use snake_case and are lowercase, but there is a minor mix of French (creer_demande, verifier_entreprise) and English (fetch, search) verbs. The pattern is mostly consistent.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for the event provider domain, covering search, details, request creation, and verification. Not too few or too many.
The tool surface covers the main workflow: search, view details, and send a request. The extra verification tool adds value. Minor gaps like listing all requests or updating a request are not essential for the domain.
Available Tools
4 toolscreer_demandeDemander un devis à un prestataireAInspect
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).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Yes | Email de contact de l'utilisateur (obligatoire pour recevoir une réponse) | |
| client_phone | No | Téléphone de l'utilisateur (optionnel) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior; description adds that no payment data is collected and the request is reviewed before transmission. This adds valuable context beyond 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?
The description is a single paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core instruction. It is concise and covers necessary points without extra fluff. Slight room for structuring but no waste.
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?
The description adequately explains the purpose, preconditions, and what happens after creation. It could mention the response format (e.g., confirmation ID) but the schema covers required parameters. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool is for creating a quote request to a provider after user selection. It uses specific verbs ('créer une demande'), specifies the target ('prestataire'), and distinguishes from siblings like search, fetch, and verifier_entreprise.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('UNIQUEMENT après que l'utilisateur a explicitement choisi un prestataire ET confirmé vouloir lui envoyer une demande'), and what not to use it for ('N'utilise pas cet outil pour rechercher, afficher une fiche ou vérifier une entreprise'). Provides clear context about the process.
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 prestataireARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant du prestataire renvoyé par search |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds what specific fields are returned (métiers, ville, note, description, lien) and that the ID must come from search. No contradictions.
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 sentences plus a negative instruction, all front-loaded. No wasted words; each sentence serves a clear purpose.
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 simple single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, returned data, and exclusion of alternatives. Complete without being verbose.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, describing it as the identifier returned by search. The description reinforces this context, linking to search tool, which adds value beyond schema.
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 the tool fetches details of a specific provider by ID, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings (search, creer_demande). It uses specific verb+resource and lists returned fields.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (user wants details of a specific provider from an ID obtained via search) and when not (for searching multiple providers or sending a request). Names alternative tools directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchRechercher des prestatairesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Utilise cet outil quand l'utilisateur cherche un prestataire pour un événement en France (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 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). France uniquement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Métier + ville recherchés, ex. « DJ mariage Lyon », « traiteur Paris », « photographe Bordeaux » |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds that results are verified providers with city, rating, and link, and that it's France-only. No contradictions. Could mention pagination but sufficient.
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 plus a clear exclusion statement. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. Front-loaded with when to use.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, good annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage, constraints, and return information. No gaps.
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?
Single parameter 'query' with schema description and examples in both schema and description. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; description adds format guidance and examples, earning a 4.
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?
Description explicitly states tool searches for verified event service providers in France, with specific examples of trades and events. Distinguishes from sibling tools by stating what not to use it for.
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?
Clearly advises when to use (user searching for a provider by trade and city) and when not to use (use verifier_entreprise, fetch, or creer_demande). Explicit alternatives provided.
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)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siret | Yes | Numéro SIRET (14 chiffres) ou SIREN (9 chiffres), espaces tolérés |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds that no data is modified, mentions the official API source, and notes the return includes status (active/fermée). This provides extra context beyond 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?
The description is concise with three sentences: usage context, return details, and exclusion/scope. No unnecessary words, and key points are 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?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (raison sociale, adresse, statut) and the API source. No missing critical information for a simple lookup tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the 'siret' parameter, but the description adds value by stating that spaces are tolerated and that SIREN (9 digits) is also accepted, which goes beyond the schema description.
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 the tool verifies a French company's reliability using SIRET/SIREN, and lists the returned data (raison sociale, adresse, statut). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' tool by specifying not to use it for searching providers.
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?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when user wants to verify a French company') and when not to use it ('do not use for searching providers'), including a geographic restriction ('France only').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!