commande
French invoice purchase-order reference (number + optional date). Usage for identifying the operation (L441-9). Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
fr-legal-kit
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the reference's content and legal usage, and the 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence is unexplained; it never states what the tool returns, whether it is a static/read-only mention, or how the payment note relates to invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and the core definition is front-loaded, but the final 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence does not earn its place and adds confusion rather than invocation guidance.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the agent receives or what exactly to invoke. It never explicitly says the tool returns a formatted purchase-order reference string, and the payment-related fragment makes the overall context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero defined parameters, so the empty schema leaves no parameter ambiguity. The description's addition that the reference contains a number and optional date is the main semantic value and justifies the baseline score of 4 for 0-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the domain resource ('French invoice purchase-order reference') and its content (number + optional date), which is more than a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling invoice fields. However, it lacks a verb such as 'generate', 'return', or 'format', so the agent must infer the tool's actual action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Usage for identifying the operation (L441-9)' gives a concrete purpose and legal context, so there is some guidance on when the reference matters. It does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over sibling field tools or when to omit it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.