French L441-10 late-payment: BCE MRO+10pts interest + 40€ indemnity (D.441-5) from amount_ttc and days_late. Default MRO 2.40% (H2 2026, ECB). No live BCE fetch. 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 that it does not fetch live ECB rates and uses a default MRO of 2.40%, which is transparent. However, the mention of 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is unexplained and confusing, reducing overall clarity about the tool's actual behavior. No annotations exist to supplement.
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 but poorly structured. Legal references and formula are crammed together with an unrelated payment note. The 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence is a distraction and makes the description feel disorganized.
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?
It provides legal context and a formula but lacks essential details: what the output looks like, how inputs are supplied, and when to use this tool over siblings. The incomplete parameter semantics and missing usage guidance make the description inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke it.
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 defines no parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names 'amount_ttc' and 'days_late' but does not explain their types, units, or expected formats. It also introduces the default MRO rate without clarifying how it is used. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 that it computes French late-payment interest (BCE MRO+10pts) and a fixed 40€ indemnity under D.441-5, based on amount_ttc and days_late. This is a specific calculation purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like penalty_text or dunning_steps.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'No live BCE fetch' but does not advise when a user should prefer this static-rate version over a tool that fetches live rates. Usage context is missing.
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.