Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Marcel

by fr.marcel-retraite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Comparer deux détentions d'un bien au Portugal

simulate_immo_portugal
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare deux façons d'investir au Portugal depuis la trésorerie d'une SASU française : distribution puis achat en nom propre, ou prêt en compte courant à une filiale portugaise. Applique la convention France-Portugal. 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_portugal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tauxPretNoTaux prêt inter-entreprises (défaut 0.04)
prixAchatYes
tmiFranceYesTMI France (ex: 0.30)
prixReventeYes
horizonAnneesYes
loyersBrutsAnYes
tresorerieSASUYesTrésorerie SASU nette d'IS
chargesAnnuellesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it applies the France-Portugal tax convention, returns a label without a recommendation, flags infeasible options, and warns the result is indicative ('résultat indicatif'). What it omits is the shape of the annual flows over the horizon (aggregated vs year-by-year) and any caveat about assumptions like default tauxPret.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the whole definition is one dense run-on sentence with the input list and a very long parenthetical feasibility clause buried mid-sentence. The content is largely substantive, yet bullet-separating 'Entrées' and 'Sortie' would have made it far easier to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description does explain the returned fields and the meaning of optionNetLePlusEleveFaisable, which is genuinely useful. However it leaves key inputs undocumented (chargesAnnuelles, prixRevente, tmiFrance) and its 'tranche' reference is unexplained, so an agent cannot fully construct a correct call from the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 38% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but its input list ('trésorerie, prix, loyers, horizon, tranche') is vague and includes 'tranche', which does not correspond to any schema property. It never mentions chargesAnnuelles, prixRevente, tauxPret or tmiFrance, so an agent must still read the schema to map inputs, and the mismatched term risks mis-parameterisation.

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 ('Compare deux façons d'investir') plus resource and jurisdictional scope ('au Portugal depuis la trésorerie d'une SASU française'), and names the two compared structures (distribution puis achat en nom propre vs prêt en compte courant à une filiale). This clearly separates it from country siblings such as simulate_immo_espagne or simulate_immo_belgique and from generic compare_* tools.

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 use case by defining what is being compared and what the outputs mean, but it never says when to choose this tool over simulate_immo_* neighbours or when it does not apply (e.g. non-Portugal, non-SASU structures). Usage is inferable but not explicitly routed.

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