Skip to main content
Glama

immobilier

by fr.synergieloc

cao_generer_dxf

WHEN the drawing must leave as a real CAD file, openable by an architect or a draughtsman. Draw a building scene and get an AutoCAD DXF. Call cao_verifier first to catch geometry mistakes. Scene schema: GET https://synergieloc.fr/api/v1/cao/schema. JSON response includes alertes[] when issues remain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mursNoWalls: plan segments extruded vertically
planNo2D reference lines
boitesNoBoxes (furniture, volumes): center x,y + dims l,p,h (mm)
cerclesNo
reseauxNoPlumbing pipe runs (EF/EC/EU/EV/EP/chauffage) — used only by cao_pdf (technical plan + linear-meter quantities per type).
toituresNoRoofs — used only by cao_pdf. WITHOUT this field: a flat roof is auto-generated over the footprint of ALL walls (legacy default). WITH it: compose freely — each entry can target a subset of walls (via `murs`), letting you build an L-shaped building's roof, or add a dormer on top of a main roof.
plomberieNoSanitary fixtures (sink, WC, shower…) — used only by cao_pdf. Same positioning as electricite.
decorationNoPaint/finish per wall — used only by cao_pdf. Colors the elevations (exterior face) and the axonometric view (face auto-detected by orientation relative to the building's centroid).
ouverturesNoDoors/windows embedded in a wall — used only by cao_pdf (elevations + axonometric view), no effect on dxf/metres.
electriciteNoElectrical symbols (outlets, switches, lights…) — used only by cao_pdf (dedicated technical plan + quantities), no effect on dxf/metres/render. Position: attached to a wall (`mur`+`position`, like ouvertures) or free (`x`,`y`).

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description adds useful context: mentions the schema GET endpoint and that the response includes alertes[]. However, it does not disclose if the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor any authorization needs or rate limits. It adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise and includes essential usage guidance. Could benefit from bullet points but is not overly verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and prerequisite (call cao_verifier) but lacks details on the output (DXF file behavior) and response handling. The mention of alertes is helpful but incomplete.

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 high (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter information beyond the schema; it only says 'Draw a building scene' and points to the external schema endpoint. No new semantics for individual parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose: generate a real CAD file (DXF) from a building scene. It uses a specific verb ('generate'), identifies the resource (AutoCAD DXF), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'real CAD file' vs other outputs like PDF or renders.

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?

Explicitly says 'WHEN the drawing must leave as a real CAD file' and advises to call cao_verifier first. References a schema endpoint. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling context and wording imply when not to use it.

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

All immobilier 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by purpose (e.g., quittance_loyer vs relance_impaye, or relance_facture_client vs relance_impaye). A few pairs like bon_intervention and fiche_mission could cause confusion, but detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix French and English, and use inconsistent patterns: some are noun-based (annonce_location, quittance_loyer), some verb-based (decide_campagne, obtenir_cle_api), and the cao_* tools use a prefix convention. Still readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is excessive for most servers, even one covering real estate and CAD. While the breadth is justified by multiple subdomains, the sheer number makes the surface hard to navigate and suggests possible over-fragmentation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range: rental lifecycle (annonce, EDL, quittance, relance), owner reporting, artisan documents, fiscal synthesis, CAD generation and verification, outreach, and guides. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tenant/property CRUD), but for a document-generation server it is quite complete.

Resources