French CGV invoice mention (C. com. L441-6): 'Nos conditions générales de vente s'appliquent.' Optional URL. A mention does not replace prior communication to the professional buyer. 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cost ('Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402') and a legal limitation, but it does not describe what the tool actually does (e.g., returns the mention text) or how the optional URL is used. The description is partially transparent but lacks key operational details.
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 concise, containing two main sentences plus a cost note. It front-loads the essential mention text and legal reference, then adds a caveat and cost. No unnecessary verbosity, though the cost note could be considered peripheral. Overall well-structured and efficient.
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, the description covers the legal mention and a caveat, but it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the string itself) or how the optional URL factors in. It also does not differentiate from many sibling tools that handle similar legal mentions. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is mostly complete but leaves some operational details unstated.
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 zero defined parameters (schema shows additionalProperties true but no specific params). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description mentions 'Optional URL' which could imply a parameter, but since no parameters exist, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further. The baseline applies here.
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 provides a French CGV invoice mention, including the legal reference (C. com. L441-6) and the exact text. It implies its purpose without explicitly using a verb like 'generates' or 'returns', but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the specific mention is unique.
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 includes a legal caveat ('A mention does not replace prior communication to the professional buyer') which is a usage note, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned, and there is no clear condition for selecting this tool over similar legal mention tools.
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.