French invoice duplicata: same original number stamped DUPLICATA. Not a new L441-9 number and not a credit note. Collable 'Ne pas comptabiliser une seconde fois.' 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes odd details like 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' and 'Collable ‘Ne pas comptabiliser une seconde fois.’' without explaining their meaning or the tool's side effects. This leaves the behavioral implications unclear, such as whether the tool modifies an existing invoice or creates a new record.
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 relatively brief, but it includes extraneous and confusing elements such as 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' and ungrammatical phrasing like 'Collable.' These distract from the core message and reduce structural clarity.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should be self-sufficient. However, it is cryptic and does not clearly explain the tool's purpose or behavior, leaving gaps in understanding that an agent would need to infer or research.
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 input schema has no defined parameters (additionalProperties is true but no properties are listed), and schema coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies, and the description is not required to explain parameter semantics.
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 the tool as a 'French invoice duplicata' with the same original number stamped DUPLICATA, and explicitly differentiates it from a new L441-9 number and a credit note. This provides some clarity, but it does not clearly state the action or function of the tool (e.g., creating, generating, or marking a duplicate), leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
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 negative guidance by stating it is 'Not a new L441-9 number and not a credit note,' which helps distinguish it from some sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the exact conditions under which a duplicata should be issued.
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.