immobilier

relance_facture_client

QUAND un artisan n'est pas payé par SON client (BTP). À ne pas confondre avec relance_impaye, qui vise un locataire. Relance facture client BTP (app Factures en retard), niveaux 1–4. Différent de relance_impaye (locatif). POST /api/v1/documents/relance-facture-client.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`iban`	No
`delai`	No
`niveau`	No
`reference`	No
`client_nom`	No
`montant_du`	No
`date_echeance`	No
`date_emission`	No
`client_adresse`	No
`entreprise_nom`	No
`facture_numero`	No
`entreprise_adresse`	No

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'reminder' and levels but does not explain what happens when invoked (e.g., sends email, generates document), leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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?

Description is concise with two focused sentences plus endpoint. Some redundancy in differentiating from relance_impaye, but overall well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter meanings, typical usage patterns, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage; description does not explain any parameter except a minor hint about 'niveau' (levels 1-4). The agent receives no guidance on what iban, delai, etc., represent.

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?

Description clearly states it handles reminders for unpaid BTP client invoices, using specific verb 'relance' and distinguishes from sibling 'relance_impaye' which targets tenants.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (unpaid client invoices) and warns not to confuse with tenant reminders, providing clear context and exclusions.

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?