French share-capital invoice mention for sociétés (SAS/SARL/SA/SCI): 'au capital de 1 000,00 €', optional variable capital. EI/micro have no capital. Format only, not a Kbis. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is only a formatted mention and not an official Kbis document, and it also flags the paid nature of the operation ('Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402'). It does not describe exact edge-case formatting, but for a simple zero-parameter tool this is adequate.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the example, scope, exclusions, disambiguation, and cost. Every sentence adds new information with no filler.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core requirements: what it returns, for which legal forms, and what it does not do. It could be slightly more explicit about the return type being a plain string and how the optional variable-capital variant is triggered, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers inputs and there is nothing for the description to explain. The description instead adds useful output context, such as the mention format and optional variable capital.
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 states the tool produces the standard French share-capital invoice mention ('au capital de 1 000,00 €') for SAS/SARL/SA/SCI, and notes the optional variable-capital variant. It also clearly distinguishes the output as 'Format only, not a Kbis', so the agent knows exactly what kind of result to expect.
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 gives clear applicability: use it for sociétés in the listed legal forms, and explicitly excludes EI/micro because they have no capital. It does not name sibling alternatives like mention_fields or legal_form, but the legal-form scope is sufficient for most routing decisions.
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.