Inclusive count of French metropolitan open days between two dates (skip Sat/Sun + L.3133-1 holidays 2026–2027). Optional Alsace-Moselle extras. 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 a key behavioral trait: the tool is paid ($0.01 USDC Base x402). It also explains the computation logic (skips weekends and specific holidays, optional regional extras). Since no annotations are provided, the description takes on full responsibility for transparency, and it does so adequately, though it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects.
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 a single, concise sentence that begins with the primary purpose and includes essential details (holiday law reference, year range, optional extras, and cost). It is tightly written with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of an input schema and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool calculates but does not specify how to pass the required dates or how the result is returned (format, type). Without this information, an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool despite the clear purpose.
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 input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, so the description is the only source of parameter information. It mentions 'between two dates' and 'optional Alsace-Moselle extras' but does not define parameter names, types, or formats (e.g., start_date, end_date, region). This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.
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 the tool's function: an inclusive count of open days between two dates, skipping weekends and L.3133-1 holidays for French metropolitan areas, with an optional Alsace-Moselle variant. It specifies the exact scope and even includes the payment amount, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.
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 the tool (whenever a French open-day count is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or conditions. Sibling tools like 'holidays' or 'jours_francs' exist, but there is no comparison or direction on when to choose this tool over them.
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.