CGI 289 document title: Facture, Avoir, Facture d'acompte, Note d'honoraires (still an invoice), or Devis (not L441-9). Optional number → 'Facture n° …'. 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 side effects, permissions, or behavioral details are disclosed. The tool could be read-only or mutating, but nothing in the description clarifies this.
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 contains irrelevant information like 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' and is not organized effectively. It is short but not focused or clear.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description lacks essential context for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It does not explain what the tool returns or how the optional number is used.
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 description references an 'optional number' but the schema defines no parameters (additionalProperties true with no named properties). This is a mismatch that leaves input semantics completely unclear.
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 lists possible document types and an optional number but does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., generate, return, validate). The phrase 'CGI 289 document title:' is cryptic and lacks a verb or clear resource.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., invoice_numbering, proforma, etc.). No explicit conditions or use cases are described.
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.