Suggested FR B2B dunning calendar after the due date (J+1 / J+8 / J+15). L441-10 penalties accrue without a reminder. Usage, not a statutory timetable. 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 that L441-10 penalties accrue without a reminder and notes it is 'usage' rather than statutory, adding context about the nature of the output. However, it does not describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., a list, a string, a calendar object), nor any side effects or auth requirements. The cryptic 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' adds confusion rather than clarity. Overall, it provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.
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-loaded with the main purpose, but it includes extraneous and confusing elements such as 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' which does not contribute to understanding the tool's function. The sentence about penalties is tangential to the core purpose. The structure is a run-on with mixed information, reducing clarity despite its brevity.
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?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how the agent should use the result. The mention of penalties and the 'usage' caveat provide some context, but an agent would still not know what to expect from the call. This is incomplete for a tool with no other documentation.
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 parameters and the input schema is empty, so the schema already covers everything. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description adds no additional parameter semantics but also doesn't need to.
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 the tool provides a suggested FR B2B dunning calendar with specific intervals (J+1 / J+8 / J+15) and explicitly notes it is not a statutory timetable. This differentiates it from likely siblings like late_penalties or payment_term_max, though it doesn't explicitly say 'returns a schedule'. The purpose is evident from the phrasing.
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 gives some usage context by stating it is a 'suggested' calendar and 'not a statutory timetable', implying when not to use it (for legal requirements). However, it does not name any alternative tools or explicitly state when to use this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list. This is partial guidance but not explicit.
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.