Skip to main content
Glama

immobilier

by fr.synergieloc

cao_pdf

WHEN the design must be HANDED OVER to a client, an architect or a planning office. Generate a professional TECHNICAL SHEET from a CAO scene: top view, elevations, shaded axonometric, optional MEP plan. IMPORTANT: call cao_verifier FIRST and fix critical alerts (floating dormers, absolute sill heights, upper floor without windows) before delivering — the sheet embeds an orange alert banner when issues remain. Returns JSON {html, alertes, alertes_ok, resume}. Same scene as cao_generer_dxf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mursNoWalls: plan segments extruded vertically
planNo2D reference lines
titreNoProject title shown as the sheet's heading.
auteurNoOptional: shown as 'Réalisé pour ...'.
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a technical sheet with specific views, returns JSON with fields {html, alertes, alertes_ok, resume}, and embeds an orange alert banner if issues remain. It also mentions the prerequisite of calling cao_verifier. It does not explicitly state side effects (non-destructive read-like), but the context implies computation, not mutation.

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?

The description is remarkably concise: two sentences plus an IMPORTANT clause and return type. It front-loads the usage context, lists key outputs, and includes critical prerequisite info without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisite, and return format. It references cao_generer_dxf for scene consistency, which adds context. However, it could be more complete by describing error conditions or required parameter structure, but schema already details parameters.

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 92% (high), so the schema already explains most parameters. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning uses like 'top view' and 'optional MEP plan', which hint at parameter relevance but do not elaborate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 tool generates a professional technical sheet from a CAO scene, listing specific views (top view, elevations, shaded axonometric, optional MEP plan). It distinguishes from siblings like cao_generer_dxf by stating 'Same scene as cao_generer_dxf', indicating different output format.

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 explicitly says 'WHEN the design must be handed over to a client...' and emphasizes calling cao_verifier FIRST, giving clear context and prerequisites. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond the sibling reference.

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