Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Marcel

by fr.marcel-retraite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Comparer deux détentions d'un bien en Espagne

simulate_immo_espagne
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare deux façons d'investir en Espagne depuis la trésorerie d'une SASU française : distribution puis achat en nom propre, ou prêt en compte courant à une filiale espagnole. Applique la convention France-Espagne. Entrées : trésorerie, prix, loyers, horizon, tranche. Sortie : coût d'entrée, flux annuels et net de chaque option, optionNetLePlusEleve (libellé de l'option au net le plus élevé, sans recommandation) et optionNetLePlusEleveFaisable (false si cette option n'est pas faisable telle quelle : en nom propre, la trésorerie restant après le prélèvement de sortie est inférieure au prix, et le calcul porte sur une quote-part du bien ; en filiale, le prêt est limité à la trésorerie, inférieure au prix, et le complément de financement n'est pas modélisé). 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": {
      "tresorerieSASU": "<tresorerieSASU>",
      "prixAchat": "<prixAchat>",
      "loyersBrutsAn": "<loyersBrutsAn>",
      "chargesAnnuelles": "<chargesAnnuelles>",
      "prixRevente": "<prixRevente>",
      "horizonAnnees": "<horizonAnnees>",
      "tmiFrance": "<tmiFrance>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_immo_espagne"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tauxPretNoTaux prêt inter-entreprises (défaut 0.04)
prixAchatYes
tmiFranceYesTMI France (ex: 0.30)
prixReventeYes
horizonAnneesYes
loyersBrutsAnYes
tresorerieSASUYes
chargesAnnuellesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the output fields, the feasibility caveats (quote-part in direct holding, loan capped at cash in subsidiary), and that no recommendation is given. It does not discuss precision limits beyond 'résultat indicatif'.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the comparison is stated first, then inputs, then outputs, then caveats. The output sentence is long and parenthetical, but every clause carries information; little is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the two option-label fields and the feasibility flag semantics. The main gap is the unexplained input parameters, which belong to the parameter dimension.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely names trésorerie, prix, loyers, horizon and 'tranche' (presumably tmiFrance), but leaves chargesAnnuelles, prixRevente and tauxPret unexplained, and 'tranche' does not map cleanly to any parameter name.

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 specific verb and resource: comparing two ways of holding Spanish property from a French SASU's cash (distribution + direct purchase vs. current-account loan to a Spanish subsidiary). The country and structure specificity clearly separates it from siblings like simulate_immo_portugal or compare_chemin.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear the exact scenario it models and the two options compared, which implicitly routes the agent away from other country simulators. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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