Statutory ceiling on agreed FR B2B payment terms: 60 days after invoice issue, or 45 days end-of-month if stipulated (L441-10 I). Not a recommended term. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool relates to a statutory ceiling and that the term is not recommended, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or returns a value. The phrase 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is confusing and suggests an unrelated payment or test, which obscures rather than clarifies 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 core information (statutory ceiling and legal reference) is concise and front-loaded. However, the sentence 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' appears irrelevant and confusing, detracting from the structure. 'Not a recommended term' is somewhat useful but not essential. Overall, the description is brief but contains an unnecessary element.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description still lacks completeness because it does not state what the tool actually returns or how it functions. It describes the legal rule but not the tool's action (e.g., returning a value, checking a term, or providing a reference). The confusing 'Paid' phrase adds ambiguity. An agent would be uncertain about how to use the tool's output.
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 no parameters in the input schema (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). Since there is nothing to document, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist.
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 the tool provides the statutory ceiling for French B2B payment terms (60 days or 45 days end-of-month). It also indicates it is not a recommendation. However, it does not explicitly say whether the tool returns the maximum value, validates compliance, or serves as a reference, leaving some ambiguity about its exact function.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool compared to sibling tools. It mentions the statutory ceiling and that it is not a recommended term, but does not specify scenarios such as checking payment term compliance or calculating the maximum allowed duration. There is no explicit 'use this when' instruction.
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.