Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Marcel

by fr.marcel-retraite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mesurer l'effet d'une décision sur la trajectoire

marcel_simulate_decision
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calcule l'effet d'une décision (dépense, retrait, financement) sur la trajectoire patrimoniale, selon la source de financement : assurance-vie, PEA, compte-titres, PER, liquidités, crédit lombard. Entrées : profil, actifs, décision. Sortie : coût fiscal immédiat et effet sur le revenu futur de chaque source. 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": {
      "profile": "<profile>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "marcel_simulate_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsNoActifs patrimoniaux détenus
fiscalNoContexte fiscal pour le calcul des retraits
lombardNoOption de financement par nantissement de portefeuille — à inclure pour comparer avec les cessions
profileYesProfil du foyer. Le net de pension est chiffré à partir du brut, du revenu fiscal de référence d'avis et des parts, ou d'un net fourni avec sa provenance ; sinon il est null.
decisionYesDécision à simuler

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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful context by naming the output (coût fiscal immédiat, effet sur revenu futur per funding source) and flagging that results are indicative, backed by reference cases. It does not mention the lombard duration-comparison warning, which lives only in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then enumerate sources, then state input/output shape. No filler, though the final disclaimer sentence is marginal.

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?

For a complex 5-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description covers what the calculation does, which sources are compared, what the output contains, and the indicative nature of results. Missing only guidance on prerequisites (e.g. TMI required for PER withdrawals) and sibling routing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the top-level inputs (profil, actifs, décision) and the funding-source dimension but adds no field-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents in depth.

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 ('Calcule l'effet') and resource ('d'une décision ... sur la trajectoire patrimoniale'), then enumerates the funding vehicles covered (assurance-vie, PEA, CTO, PER, liquidités, crédit lombard). It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like simulate_rachat or simulate_donation, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Lists decision types and inputs/outputs, which implies when the tool applies, but never states when to prefer it over simulate_rachat, simulate_per_sortie, simulate_donation, or compare_chemin. The 'résultat indicatif' note is a caveat rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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