Izifete — prestataires événementiels en France

Rechercher des prestataires

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.

All Izifete — prestataires événementiels en France tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct task: searching for providers, fetching details, creating a request, verifying a business, and two clearly separated advice channels (event organizer vs professional). The descriptions explicitly cross-reference to eliminate overlap, making misselection highly unlikely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix French (conseils_evenement, creer_demande) and English (search, fetch) and follow different patterns: noun-based for advice, verb+noun for actions, and simple verbs. While readable and consistently lowercase with underscores, the lack of a single convention reduces predictability.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a directory and advice service, covering all core interactions (search, detail view, request creation, business verification, guidance) without unnecessary bloat. The count fits the standard 3-15 range comfortably.

Completeness4/5

The primary user journey (search → fetch → creer_demande) is fully supported, supplemented by company verification and targeted advice. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/cancel flow for requests, but these are not critical for the service's stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?