French invoice due date: invoice_date + net_days (calendar). Also next_open_day skipping weekends + L.3133-1 holidays 2026–2027. No live calendar fetch. 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, the description carries the burden and does reveal useful behavior: calendar-day addition, weekend/holiday skipping for the next open day, a 2026–2027 holiday window, and no live calendar fetching. However, the exact trigger for next_open_day and the output format are left ambiguous, which matters because no output schema exists.
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 core formula before the holiday adjustment and limitations. The 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence is not useful for selecting or invoking the tool, but the rest is efficiently packed.
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 simple computation, the description names the key inputs and the holiday/calendar behavior, which is minimally viable. It is incomplete on output shape, how to pass the inputs given the empty schema, and what happens outside the 2026–2027 holiday window.
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 formal parameters and an open additionalProperties schema, so the description is the only source of input meaning. It names invoice_date and net_days and clarifies that net_days is calendar-based, giving helpful semantics, though it stops short of specifying date formats or required fields.
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 identifies the tool as computing a French invoice due date from invoice_date plus net_days in calendar days, which distinguishes it from generic date helpers. The 'also next_open_day...' clause adds some ambiguity about whether the due date is adjusted or a separate value is produced, so it is not fully crisp.
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 French invoice context is implied by the description, and the 'No live calendar fetch' note hints at a limitation rather than giving when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly direct the agent away from sibling tools such as due_date_eom, days_late, or holidays.
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.