OutilsIA — Conseiller IA locale

Analyser un rapport OutilsIA partagé

analyze_shared_report

Read-only

Lit un rapport public OutilsIA Local Cockpit déjà créé par l'utilisateur. Accepte uniquement une URL exacte https://outilsia.fr/r/... et ne donne aucun accès à la machine.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`usage`	No		polyvalent
`report_url`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`decision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / machine / properties / storage_free_gb / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
addedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / machine / properties / storage_status
```
Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "unknown",
+    "measured"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / machine / required

Previous value: -[
-  "cpu",
-  "cpu_cores",
-  "ram_gb",
-  "gpu",
-  "gpu_vendor",
-  "vram_gb",
-  "unified_memory",
-  "storage_free_gb",
-  "os"
-]New value: +[
+  "cpu",
+  "cpu_cores",
+  "ram_gb",
+  "gpu",
+  "gpu_vendor",
+  "vram_gb",
+  "unified_memory",
+  "storage_free_gb",
+  "storage_status",
+  "os"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / purchase / properties / facts_used
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / purchase / properties / upgrade / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "guide_url": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "price": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "summary": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "target_ram_gb": {
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "target_vram_gb": {
-        "type": "number"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "name",
-      "summary",
-      "target_vram_gb",
-      "target_ram_gb",
-      "price",
-      "guide_url"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "component": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "guide_url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "price": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "target_ram_gb": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "target_vram_gb": {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "summary",
+      "target_vram_gb",
+      "target_ram_gb",
+      "price",
+      "guide_url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / recommended_models / items / properties / estimated
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / recommended_models / items / properties / fit

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "full_gpu_fit",
+    "partial_offload",
+    "cpu_offload_heavy",
+    "storage_only",
+    "blocked",
+    "unknown"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / decision / properties / recommended_models / items / properties / fit_label
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context on top: 'Accepte uniquement une URL exacte' discloses the tool's narrow contract and 'ne donne aucun accès à la machine' clarifies it dereferences a public URL rather than inspecting local state — a boundary the readOnly annotation alone does not imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and object, the second bundles the input constraint and the safety boundary. The main verb is front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly on the report_url side. The real gaps are the unexplained `usage` parameter (its enum values and how they shape the analysis) and the absence of routing guidance among the three report-related siblings. These are moderate rather than severe gaps, so this lands at an adequate-but-incomplete 3.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully for report_url, adding a strict pattern constraint ('https://outilsia.fr/r/...') beyond the schema's generic uri format. However, the optional `usage` parameter (an enum of 7 French usage profiles) is never mentioned, leaving its effect on the analysis completely undocumented — partial compensation, not full.

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?

The description has a specific verb ('Lit' / reads) and a clear resource: a public OutilsIA Local Cockpit report already created by the user. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings — 'déjà créé par l'utilisateur' separates it from report-creation tools and 'ne donne aucun accès à la machine' separates it from local-machine tools like check_pc_for_local_ai — but it never names the sibling it is not, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 conveys the core precondition — the agent should use this tool when the user already has an exact public report URL of the form https://outilsia.fr/r/... It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the report-list siblings (list_benchmark_proofs_from_report, list_installed_models_from_report), nor does it give exclusion conditions such as 'do not use if the report is not public.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OutilsIA — Conseiller IA locale 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.

Resources

Need Help?