French reverse-charge VAT mention (autoliquidation): intra-EU CGI 283, construction 283-2 nonies, or import. Invoice shows HT; VAT due by the customer. Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' which suggests a payment or fee but does not clarify whether this tool triggers a payment, returns a mention, or performs an action. The description is otherwise purely informational and does not state whether it mutates data or has 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but packs multiple pieces of information: legal basis, invoice treatment, and a payment detail. It is concise and to the point, though the 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' phrase is somewhat out of place and reduces clarity. Overall, it is well-structured for a simple mention generator.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the reverse-charge mention, relevant legal articles, and how the invoice is presented. The 'Paid' line is ambiguous but does not prevent understanding of the core function. It could be improved by explicitly stating that the tool returns a text mention, but it is largely complete.
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 input schema is empty (type object with additionalProperties true) and the description mentions no parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed. The description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose without requiring parameters.
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 that the tool provides the French reverse-charge VAT mention (autoliquidation) with specific legal references (CGI 283, 283-2 nonies, import). It also explains the invoice shows HT and VAT is due by the customer, making the purpose unambiguous. The name and description align perfectly.
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 lists the applicable contexts (intra-EU, construction, import) and indicates the invoice shows HT with VAT due by the customer. It does not explicitly name alternative tools from the sibling list, but the specific legal references and context clues make it clear when to use this mention. Slightly more explicit guidance could push it to 5.
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.
Many tools cover adjacent legal concepts such as down payments (acompte/arrhes), payment deadlines (due_date/due_eom/days_late), and identifier checks (check_siret/siren_from_siret/vat_key/eori), which can cause misselection. The descriptions do distinguish them clearly, but the sheer volume of overlapping categories still creates boundary confusion for an agent.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are mostly short, readable French legal nouns or noun phrases, so there is a predictable stylistic pattern. The mix of French and English names and the occasional verb-led names like check_siret or siren_from_siret prevent a perfect score.
With 68 tools, this server is far beyond the well-scoped 3-15 tool range and even beyond the 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Each tool is a tiny one-purpose helper, but the set as a whole is overwhelming and should be grouped into fewer, broader tools or split into multiple servers.
The tool surface covers an impressively broad range of French legal needs: statutory invoice mentions, payment penalties, holidays, VAT calculations, identifier checks, warranties, withdrawal rights, and dunning steps. There are no obvious dead ends, and mention_fields acts as a completeness checklist for required invoice mentions.