CGI 293 B franchise-en-base 2026 thresholds (services 37 500/41 250, goods 85 000/93 500) plus the statutory invoice mention. 25 000 € unique threshold was abandoned. Not a tax ruling. 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?
There are no annotations and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, or behavior. The 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' text appears unrelated and potentially injected, undermining transparency.
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 but includes extraneous and unrelated content such as 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' and 'Not a tax ruling', which detracts from the core, already vague message.
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 no-parameter tool this description is still incomplete: it does not state what the output will be, whether it returns a mention string, a boolean, or a calculation result, leaving an agent unable to predict tool behavior.
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 schema coverage is effectively complete, so the baseline of 3 applies. No parameter-specific description is needed.
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 does not state a clear action or resource. It mentions 'thresholds' and 'statutory invoice mention' but lacks a verb like 'calculate' or 'get', and the appended 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is irrelevant and confusing.
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 the many sibling tools. The disclaimers 'Not a tax ruling' and the unrelated payment text do not clarify usage.
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.