French e-invoice calendar: who must receive (2026-09-01 all) vs emit (GE/ETI 2026, PME/micro 2027). Size in, dates out. No registry lookup. 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?
The description discloses some behavioral traits: it performs no registry lookup and is paid ($0.01 USDC Base x402). However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or whether it has any side effects beyond the stated payment. The disclosure is partial but not absent.
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 brief and information-dense, with no redundant filler. Phrases like 'Size in, dates out' are compact and memorable. The payment and no-lookup notes add relevant behavioral context without bloating the text.
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 gives the core rule and key dates, which is likely sufficient for a simple helper tool. However, it omits the output shape, how the size input is interpreted, and any edge cases such as company classifications. It is complete enough for a rough understanding but not fully self-contained.
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 is empty with additionalProperties true, so no formal parameters are defined. The description references an implicit 'size' input but does not specify the expected format, allowed values, or how to supply it. This leaves significant ambiguity for callers.
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 a French e-invoice calendar and indicates that it returns obligation dates based on company size. The phrases 'Size in, dates out' and the specific date thresholds make the core purpose understandable. It loses one point because the wording is slightly compressed and could be misread.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives a hint with 'No registry lookup' but does not mention any sibling tool or provide selection criteria. The payment note is present but not framed as a usage condition relative to other tools.
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.