French legal warranty of conformity (C. conso L.217-3): 2 years from delivery for consumer goods. Does not apply to professional buyers. Optional 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?
The description explains the core behavior: optional delivery_date produces an expiry date based on a 2-year period. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, and the phrase 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is ambiguous and potentially implies an unexpected payment-related behavior.
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 legal warranty explanation is concise and front-loaded, but the final sentence 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is unrelated to the tool's function and creates confusion. Removing or clarifying that string would make the description more effective.
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 enough context for a basic legal warranty expiry calculation, but it omits the output format or return value shape. The ambiguous payment string also leaves room for misinterpretation, so the description is not fully complete on its own.
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 formal properties, but the description mentions 'optional delivery_date' as an input. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, but it does not specify the expected date format, and the schema's additionalProperties: true makes the accepted input surface unclear.
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 this tool calculates the French legal warranty of conformity: 2 years from delivery for consumer goods. It distinguishes itself from commercial warranty tools by referencing the specific legal rule and consumer-only applicability.
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 implies when to use it: for consumer goods legal warranty calculations, and explicitly says it does not apply to professional buyers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like garantie_commerciale, but the scope is clear enough for most selection cases.
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.