Skip to main content
Glama

SesApp Access Sheets

by fr.sesapp

create_fiche

Create an access sheet. Write the guest flip-book in instructions (Markdown; guest language, usually French). Cover (map/name/address/accessCode) is auto. Pages: --- . Photos: alt. Intents: Add WiFi or Ajouter le WiFi + wifiName/wifiPassword; Add contact or Ajouter le contact + phoneNumber. Never put wifiPassword in Markdown (150 m GPS). Optional locale fr|en for guest chrome. Playbook: GET /llms.txt. Requires Bearer. Beyond quota, retry with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE (0.50 USDC on Agent, 0.25 on Fleet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoCover map + WiFi geofence (150 m).
lonNoCover map + WiFi geofence (150 m).
nameYes
localeNoGuest chrome language. Markdown stays as written. Omit to follow Accept-Language / ?lang=.
wifiNameNoSSID for sesapp:wifi. Hidden until 150 m if wifiPassword is set.
accessCodeNoShown on the generated cover.
phoneNumberNoRequired for sesapp:contact. E.164 preferred.
instructionsNoMarkdown flip-book shown to the guest (this field). Cover (map, name, formattedAddress, accessCode) is generated — do not repeat it here. Split pages with a line containing only --- . Supported: # ## ### headings, paragraphs, **bold**, *italic*, - / 1. lists, [label](https://...), ![alt](https://...). Photos: https URLs only. No file upload — host images yourself. Never put wifiPassword in Markdown; it is unlocked only within 150 m via GPS. Intent hrefs: sesapp:wifi (needs wifiName + wifiPassword) and sesapp:contact (needs phoneNumber). Guest-facing labels: [Ajouter le WiFi] / [Ajouter le contact]. If you omit those links but set the fields, SesApp appends WiFi/contact pages. Example: # Bienvenue Parking au fond à gauche. ![Façade](https://example.com/facade.jpg) --- ## Arrivée Sonnette à gauche. [Itinéraire](https://maps.google.com/?q=48.8566,2.3522) --- [Ajouter le WiFi](sesapp:wifi) --- [Ajouter le contact](sesapp:contact)
wifiPasswordNoDo not put in instructions. Unlocked within 150 m.
formattedAddressYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / locale
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Guest chrome language. Markdown stays as written. Omit to follow Accept-Language / ?lang=.",
+  "enum": [
+    "fr",
+    "en"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses auto-generation of the cover, the 150 m GPS unlock for wifiPassword, SesApp's auto-append of WiFi/contact pages when links are omitted, the 'no file upload, host images yourself' constraint, Bearer auth, and the paid retry path with exact pricing (0.50 USDC Agent / 0.25 Fleet). These are exactly the non-obvious side-effects and operational requirements an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded — purpose in the first clause, then critical constraints (security, auth, pricing). Nearly every sentence earns its place and the playbook pointer is a legitimate navigation aid. It reads as telegraphic notes with a few ambiguous fragments ('Pages: ---' requires inference to parse as a page-separator rule) and some overlap with the schema's instructions description, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

For a 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, format, auth, quota, and pricing thoroughly. The notable gap is the lack of any statement about the return value (e.g., created fiche ID/handle) and behavior on duplicate names. The 'Playbook: GET /llms.txt' pointer partially mitigates the missing output documentation, but it is not a substitute for stating what the call returns.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by linking parameters to behavior: name/formattedAddress/accessCode feed the auto-generated cover, and wifiName/wifiPassword/phoneNumber are the prerequisites for sesapp:wifi and sesapp:contact intents. It also clarifies locale only affects guest chrome and that instructions is the guest-facing field. This compensates for the two undocumented required params (name, formattedAddress).

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 opening line 'Create an access sheet' states a specific verb and resource, and the rest of the description clarifies the deliverable (a guest-facing Markdown flip-book with cover, photos, and intents). Differentiation from siblings (update_fiche, delete_fiche, get_fiche) comes mostly from the tool name's inherent create-vs-other semantics rather than from the description explicitly, so it stops short of 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear operational context: Markdown formatting rules, intent-href requirements, the 'never put wifiPassword in Markdown' rule, locale behavior, Bearer auth, and the quota/payment retry protocol. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_fiche or that share_fiche should follow creation, so exclusions/alternatives are absent but the context itself is unambiguous.

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

All SesApp Access Sheets toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: fiches have create/get/list/update/delete, shares have create/list/revoke, webhooks have register/list/update/delete, and geocode/status/subscribe are separate supporting operations. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as create_fiche, revoke_share, and register_webhook. Minor deviations exist—status is noun-only, subscribe has no explicit object, and list_fiches pluralizes while create_fiche does not—but the naming remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each tool maps to a concrete operation needed for the service: fiche lifecycle, sharing, webhooks, and account management. No redundant or filler tools are present.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD for fiches, share creation/listing/revocation, webhook registration/listing/update/deletion, and account subscription/status. Agents can complete the main workflows around creating, sharing, and managing access sheets without dead ends.

Resources