Extra French invoice mentions by legal form (EI/micro vs SARL/SAS/SA/SCI): EI quality, 293 B, capital, RCS. On top of /v1/mention-fields. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add meaningful behavior: it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC Base x402) and that it builds on another endpoint. It does not describe return format, errors, or side effects, but for a small no-parameter helper this is a reasonable middle-tier disclosure.
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 compact, with each segment adding value: legal-form scope, included fields, base endpoint dependency, and cost. It is somewhat terse and jargon-heavy ('EI quality', '293 B'), but it is structured logically and not padded.
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?
Because this is a paid tool, has no output schema, and uses an open additionalProperties schema, the description under-specifies the invocation: it never says what input to send to indicate legal form or what the response contains. The mention of /v1/mention-fields helps but does not make the call self-explanatory for an agent.
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 context signals report zero declared parameters and the schema only allows additional properties, so the description has little parameter detail to supply. The mention of legal form as the key selector hints at expected input, but the empty schema means the baseline applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: it supplies extra French invoice mentions keyed by legal form (EI/micro vs SARL/SAS/SA/SCI) and lists concrete fields (EI quality, 293 B, capital, RCS). It clearly positions itself atop /v1/mention-fields, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mention-related tools such as rcs_mention or capital_social.
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 phrase 'Extra ... on top of /v1/mention-fields' provides clear context: this tool supplements the base mention generation and should be used when legal-form-specific French invoice mentions are needed. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or prefer sibling tools, but the legal-form scope is a usable signal.
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.