Marcel

Calculer des rachats partiels d'assurance-vie

simulate_av_strategie

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calcule une suite de rachats partiels d'assurance-vie qui utilisent l'abattement annuel de l'article 125-0 A (contrat de 8 ans ou plus, personne seule ou couple), avec le même calcul de rachat que la sortie simple. Entrées : valeur, versements, ancienneté, situation, gains par support. Sortie : rachats par année, impôt, prélèvements sociaux et net. 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": {
      "valeurContrat": "<valeurContrat>",
      "versementsTotal": "<versementsTotal>",
      "ancienneteAns": "<ancienneteAns>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_av_strategie"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tmi`	No	TMI du foyer (ex: 0.41)
`maxAnnees`	No	Horizon max de simulation (defaut 20)
`tauxAvance`	No	Taux annuel de l'avance alternative (defaut 0.04)
`plusValuesUC`	No	Gains d'unités de compte. Prélèvements sociaux de 17,2 % sur cette part seulement.
`ancienneteAns`	Yes	Anciennete du contrat en annees
`valeurContrat`	Yes	Valeur de rachat actuelle
`dureeAvanceAns`	No	Duree de l'avance alternative (defaut 3)
`versementsTotal`	Yes	Total des primes versees
`plafondGainsAnnuel`	No	Plafond de gains vise par an (defaut = abattement legal)
`situationFamiliale`	No	Personne seule ou couple.
`plusValuesFondsEuros`	No	Gains du fonds en euros. Avec plusValuesUC, même contrôle qu'au rachat.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

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 safety bar is met. The description adds meaningful context: the article 125-0 A allowance rule, the 8-year contract prerequisite, and an explicit 'résultat indicatif' caveat tied to reference cases — real transparency beyond structured fields.

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-loaded with the core action, then Inputs, then Output, then a caveat — a clean scannable structure. The disclaimer sentence is slightly tacked-on but earns its place as transparency, so minimal waste.

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 and 11 parameters, the description carries the return explanation (rachats par année, impôt, prélèvements sociaux, net) and input coverage, plus the 'indicatif' caveat. Complete enough for correct invocation, only lacking explicit 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 schema already documents all 11 parameters (including the UC vs fonds euros social-levy split). The description's broad input list (valeur, versements, ancienneté, situation, gains par support) maps to but does not deepen the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Calcule une suite de rachats partiels d'assurance-vie' with the article 125-0 A allowance as the defining scope. It distinguishes itself from a single surrender by referencing 'le même calcul de rachat que la sortie simple' (likely simulate_av/simulate_rachat), though it never names the sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Provides applicability conditions (contrat de 8 ans ou plus, personne seule ou couple), which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit 'use this vs X instead' routing — the reference to 'la sortie simple' is descriptive, not a decision rule.

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.