French invoice date of supply (CGI 289 / 242 nonies A): delivery or service execution vs invoice date. Distinct dates get an explicit mention. 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 present, so the description carries the transparency burden. The 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence hints at a cost or side effect but does not clearly state whether invoking the tool charges the user, and no other side effects are disclosed.
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 short and front-loads the legal topic, but the final 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence is cryptic and not clearly tied to the tool's function. Structure is acceptable but the payment note could confuse rather than inform.
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?
The description covers the tool's legal purpose and trigger condition, but it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a mention string) or how to interpret the output. For a simple no-input tool this may be sufficient, but the ambiguous payment sentence and absent output format leave gaps.
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 specified parameters and an empty schema with additionalProperties true, so there are no parameter meanings to add. The description does not document arbitrary additional properties, but with no declared parameters this is not a significant gap.
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 identifies a specific French legal invoice concept and states the behavior (delivery/service execution vs invoice date, with explicit mention when distinct). It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'generates', but the intent is clear from the legal reference and condition.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over the many sibling invoice-mention tools, nor any 'use when' or 'do not use when' direction. The distinct-date condition implies a trigger, but it is not spelled out as usage guidance.
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.