Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Marcel

by fr.marcel-retraite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Calculer un apport-cession

simulate_apport_cession
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare quatre scénarios d'apport-cession (CGI art. 150-0 B ter) : cession directe, réinvestissement au minimum légal, réinvestissement total, transmission par donation des titres. Entrées : valeur, prix de revient, taux de réinvestissement, horizon, rendement. Sortie : impôt reporté, coût de chaque scénario et valeur temps du report. 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": {
      "valeurCession": "<valeurCession>",
      "prixRevient": "<prixRevient>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_apport_cession"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
horizonAnsNoHorizon de placement en années (défaut 10)
prixRevientYesPrix de revient (coût d'acquisition)
valeurCessionYesValeur de cession des titres
rendementAnnuelNoRendement annuel net de la trésorerie en report (défaut 0.05)
tauxReinvestissementNoTaux réinvestissement (min 0.60, défaut 0.60)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: what the output contains (deferred tax, per-scenario cost, time value of deferral) and the caveat that the result is indicative and validated against reference cases, which tells the agent how much to trust the figures.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with a clear purpose → inputs → outputs → caveat progression; every phrase carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned quantities and the reliability caveat, which is what an agent needs to consume the result. The only gap is sibling routing guidance for a family of ~40 simulation tools.

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 all five parameters (including defaults and the 0.60 floor on reinvestment) are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the input list without adding format, unit or constraint nuances beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb (compare) and a precisely scoped resource (four apport-cession scenarios under CGI art. 150-0 B ter), and enumerates all four scenarios so the agent knows exactly what is computed. This distinguishes it from siblings like simulate_cession_titres_vs_actifs or simulate_donation that cover adjacent but different questions.

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 description implies the right context (apport-cession planning with partial or full reinvestment), but never states when to prefer it over the closely-related siblings simulate_cession_titres_vs_actifs, simulate_donation or compare_transmission, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage has to be inferred from the subject matter.

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