French invoice means-of-payment mention (L441-9): virement, chèque, CB, espèces, prélèvement, LCR. Default virement. Collable string. 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 does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, permissions, or return format. The inclusion of 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is entirely opaque and likely irrelevant, and 'Collable string' is unclear. With no annotations to supplement, transparency is poor.
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 not concise—it includes extraneous and cryptic content such as 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' and the possibly misspelled 'Collable string'. These additions do not contribute to understanding and should be removed, making the overall structure cluttered.
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 simple nature of the tool (likely returning a string), the description should clearly state the output. It does not provide a sample or clarify the exact string format. The ambiguous notes and lack of explanation for 'Collable' leave the context incomplete, requiring the agent to make assumptions.
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?
There are zero parameters defined in the schema, and the description does not clarify any inputs. The phrase 'Default virement' misleadingly implies that a parameter might exist to select a different payment means, creating ambiguity. The irrelevant 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' further detracts. Since there are no params, the baseline is 4, but the implied input and confusing notes lower it to 3.
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 providing a French invoice means-of-payment mention, listing the exact options (virement, chèque, CB, espèces, prélèvement, LCR) and a default (virement). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'return'. The phrase 'Collable string' is ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose.
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 is provided. The mention of L441-9 gives legal context, but there is no differentiation from other invoice-related sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability. The default value hints at usage but does not specify conditions.
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.