WHEN you are helping an artisan or a BTP company and need to know what the Partner Portal already covers — call it first. FREE catalogue of the Partner Portal apps (/portal/tiers/dashboard) mapped to MCP tools. 0 units, no API key. REST: GET /api/v1/partenaire/pack
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('0 units, no API key') and specifies the HTTP method ('REST: GET'). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the empty input schema, though it does not detail the return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each essential. The first sentence front-loads the usage context, the second defines the tool, the third provides technical details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless catalogue tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and technical endpoint. It lacks explicit description of the return format, but the naming and context ('catalogue... mapped to MCP tools') provide reasonable inference. Completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description adds no parameter-specific info (none needed), and the schema is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a 'FREE catalogue of the Partner Portal apps' and tells the agent to call it first when helping artisans/BTP companies to know what the portal covers. It identifies the resource (catalogue) and action (calling it), and distinguishes from siblings by being a discovery tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'WHEN you are helping an artisan or a BTP company and need to know what the Partner Portal already covers — call it first.' This provides clear context on when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the directive to 'call it first' implies it precedes other tools, which is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.
