Marcel

Comparer trois modes de transmission

compare_transmission

Read-onlyIdempotent

Porte sur le cas où les trois modes à comparer sont déjà fixés par l'utilisateur : donation en pleine propriété, donation de la nue-propriété et succession, pour un même patrimoine. Pour une seule donation, voir simulate_donation ; pour un démembrement seul, simulate_demembrement ; pour une donation-partage, simulate_donation_partage ; pour des scénarios de donation ou de démembrement non fixés à l'avance, optimiser_patrimoine. Entrées : valeur, âge, héritiers, donateurs (1 ou 2). Avec 2, chaque parent transmet la moitié avec ses abattements et son âge. Les parts sont en pleine propriété ; en nue-propriété, la part taxée suit le barème de l'article 669. Sortie : droits de chaque mode, écarts, modalitesDroitsLesPlusBas (plusieurs en cas d'égalité) et détail par donateur. 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": {
      "valeurPatrimoine": "<valeurPatrimoine>",
      "ageDonateur": "<ageDonateur>",
      "heritiers": "<heritiers>"
    },
    "name": "compare_transmission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`donateurs`	No	Nombre de donateurs. Absent : 1. Avec 2, chaque parent transmet la moitié.
`heritiers`	Yes
`ageDonateur`	Yes
`valeurPatrimoine`	Yes
`ageDonateurConjoint`	No	Âge du second donateur. Absent avec deux donateurs : le même âge, signalé.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / heritiers / items / properties / partRecue / description

Previous value: -"Part de la valeur en pleine propriété, tous donateurs confondus. 0 : répartition égale."New value: +"Part en euros de la valeur en pleine propriété, tous donateurs confondus. Somme égale à la valeur. Absente ou 0 pour tous : répartition égale."

addedInput schema / properties / heritiers / items / properties / quotePart

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Part en fraction de la valeur, entre 0 et 1. À saisir pour chacun, somme égale à 1. Ne pas combiner avec partRecue.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / heritiers / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "lienParente",
-  "partRecue"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "lienParente"
+]

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / ageDonateurConjoint

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Âge du second donateur. Absent avec deux donateurs : le même âge, signalé.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / donateurs

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nombre de donateurs. Absent : 1. Avec 2, chaque parent transmet la moitié.",
+  "enum": [
+    1,
+    2
+  ],
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / heritiers / items / properties / partRecue / description

Added value: +"Part de la valeur en pleine propriété, tous donateurs confondus. 0 : répartition égale."

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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), so the description's added value is in substance: the article 669 barème applied to nue-propriété, the per-donateur detail, and the explicit caveat that the result is indicative and validated only against Marcel reference cases. Minor gap: nothing about performance, precision limits, or error behaviour, but the 'résultat indicatif' warning is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Well front-loaded: scope, then the sibling-routing sentence, then inputs, then outputs, then the caveat. The dense enumeration of four alternative tools in one sentence is a slightly heavy run-on, but every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is 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 correctly spells out the return shape (droits per mode, écarts, modalitesDroitsLesPlusBas including tie handling, détail par donateur). Combined with the routing and the indicative-result caveat, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the numeric semantics of valeurPatrimoine/ageDonateur are left thin.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does partly: it names the four inputs, explains that with donateurs=2 each parent transmits half with their own abattements and age (implicitly covering ageDonateurConjoint), and explains the nue-propriété taxation basis. However, ageDonateur and valeurPatrimoine get no semantic treatment beyond being named, leaving a real coverage gap at under half documented.

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?

States a precise verb and triple resource: comparing three fixed transmission modes (donation en pleine propriété, donation de la nue-propriété, succession) on the same patrimoine. It immediately differentiates itself from the closest siblings by name, so an agent can tell it apart from simulate_donation or simulate_demembrement without opening a schema.

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 opening clause fixes the trigger condition (the three modes must already be decided by the user) and then routes four alternative cases explicitly: simulate_donation for a single donation, simulate_demembrement for démembrement alone, simulate_donation_partage for donation-partage, and optimiser_patrimoine when the scenario is not predetermined. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

All Marcel tools Inspect

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.