Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Marcel

by fr.marcel-retraite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Comparer des chemins de sortie de trésorerie

compare_chemin
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare, pour un même bénéfice engagé, trois chemins : conserver en société, sortir en dividende, sortir en salaire, puis placer et sortir. Entrées : bénéfice, actif, rendement, horizon. Sortie : prélèvements de chaque étape et net final de chaque chemin. Calcul couvert par des cas de référence Marcel : résultat indicatif.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "beneficeDisponible": "<beneficeDisponible>",
      "actif": "<actif>",
      "rendementAnnuel": "<rendementAnnuel>",
      "horizonAnnees": "<horizonAnnees>"
    },
    "name": "compare_chemin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actifYesClasse d'actif
eligiblePmeNoÉligible au taux réduit PME (défaut true)
horizonAnneesYesHorizon de placement en années
rendementAnnuelYesPerformance annuelle attendue (ex: 0.07)
beneficeDisponibleYesBénéfice avant IS disponible

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real value by disclosing that results are 'indicatif' and validated against Marcel reference cases, and it outlines what each path reports. This is meaningful behavioral context 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the three-path comparison, then inputs, outputs, and the indicative caveat in a compact sequence. Dense but efficient; every clause carries information.

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 usefully explains the return ('prélèvements de chaque étape et net final de chaque chemin'), lists inputs, and flags the indicative nature of results. It is complete enough to call the tool, with only the eligiblePme param left to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all five params including the eligiblePme default and enum. The description lists four inputs (bénéfice, actif, rendement, horizon) but adds no syntax/format detail and omits eligiblePme entirely, so it does not compensate beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and resource (three exit paths for a committed profit: keep in company, dividend exit, salary exit, then invest and cash out). An agent can tell it is a multi-path exit-strategy comparison rather than a single simulation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like compare_remuneration or compare_allocation, which is why it stops short of 5.

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 scenario ('pour un même bénéfice engagé') implies the use case for comparing exit paths, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling compare_ tools. Usage is inferable but not stated as a routing rule.

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

All Marcel 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