Statutory L441-10 / D.441-5 invoice mention strings (rate BCE MRO+10 pts + 40 € indemnity). No amount required. Default MRO 2.40% H2 2026. 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 behavioral traits are disclosed: there is no mention of side effects, read-only status, output format, or error behavior. The odd 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' fragment actively confuses rather than clarifying what the tool does or returns.
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 brief but includes irrelevant and unexplained content such as 'Default MRO 2.40% H2 2026' and 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402,' which should be removed for clarity. The statutory references are useful, but the extraneous tokens make the description unfocused.
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?
The description provides some statutory context and rate info but fails to fully explain what output is generated or when to select this tool. The unrelated 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence adds confusion and is not integrated into any coherent tool behavior.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is little to add beyond the empty schema. 'No amount required' gives a hint about a possible amount parameter, but since no parameters exist, it adds limited meaningful parameter context.
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 identifies the tool as generating statutory French invoice penalty mention strings (L441-10 / D.441-15) with rate and indemnity details, so the general purpose is recognizable. However, it lacks an explicit verb and is muddled by irrelevant text like 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402,' which obscures the intended 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as late_penalties or interest_start. The fragments 'No amount required' and 'Default MRO 2.40% H2 2026' hint at behavior but do not explain conditions or selection criteria.
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.