immobilier

cao_rendu

WHEN you want to SEE the plan before delivering it — a quick visual check that the scene is what you meant. Top-down preview (SVG/PNG) of a CAO scene. Prefer cao_verifier before this for structured alerts; use the preview to visually double-check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`murs`	No	Walls: plan segments extruded vertically
`plan`	No	2D reference lines
`boites`	No	Boxes (furniture, volumes): center x,y + dims l,p,h (mm)
`format`	No		svg
`cercles`	No
`reseaux`	No	Plumbing pipe runs (EF/EC/EU/EV/EP/chauffage) — used only by cao_pdf (technical plan + linear-meter quantities per type).
`toitures`	No	Roofs — 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.
`plomberie`	No	Sanitary fixtures (sink, WC, shower…) — used only by cao_pdf. Same positioning as electricite.
`decoration`	No	Paint/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).
`ouvertures`	No	Doors/windows embedded in a wall — used only by cao_pdf (elevations + axonometric view), no effect on dxf/metres.
`electricite`	No	Electrical 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

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates a visual preview, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or list other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but lacking in detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no wasted words.

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 11 parameters and high schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's output (SVG/PNG preview). It does not describe error behavior or edge cases, but for a preview tool this is sufficient.

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 82% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond mentioning output format (SVG/PNG). The schema already describes parameters well, so no additional value needed.

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's purpose: 'WHEN you want to SEE the plan before delivering it — a quick visual check that the scene is what you meant. Top-down preview (SVG/PNG) of a CAO scene.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like cao_verifier and cao_pdf.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer cao_verifier before this for structured alerts; use the preview to visually double-check.' This tells when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All immobilier tools Inspect

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

Need Help?