French commercial warranty mention (C. conso L.217-21), distinct from the 2-year legal warranty. Optional months + delivery_date → expiry. 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 of disclosing side effects and costs. It does disclose a payment of $0.01 USDC on Base, which is a cost. However, it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has any other side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 concise, with three clear sentences: purpose, logic, and cost. It contains no superfluous information and is well-structured, making it easy to parse. The clarity is slightly reduced by the cryptic notation '→ expiry' but overall it is efficient.
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 tool, the description provides essential information: purpose, differentiation from legal warranty, logic, and cost. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., the expiry date format) or any potential variations or edge cases. Given the low complexity, it is mostly complete but lacks some details.
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 schema has no parameters, but the description mentions 'months' and 'delivery_date' and explains their relationship (months added to delivery_date to compute expiry). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, though it is not structured and does not clarify parameter types or requiredness. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema information.
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 handling the French commercial warranty mention, referencing the legal article (C. conso L.217-21) and distinguishing it from the legal warranty (garantie_legale). The purpose of computing an expiry date from months and delivery_date is implied but not explicitly stated with a verb, so it is clear but not fully explicit.
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 explicitly states that this is distinct from the 2-year legal warranty, which helps an agent choose between this tool and garantie_legale. However, it does not provide explicit conditions like 'use when the user asks for commercial warranty' or contrast with other sibling tools. The usage context is implied but not fully spelled out.
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.