French retention-of-title invoice clause (C. com. L.624-16): goods remain the seller's until full payment. Not for pure services. 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 per-invocation cost ('Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402'), which is a significant behavioral side effect. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, but since it generates a clause, the likely read-only nature is implicit. The cost disclosure is a transparency plus.
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 exceptionally compact—two sentences—yet conveys the legal basis, the substantive effect, the scope exclusion, and the payment cost. Every word adds value and the structure is clean and direct.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: it states what the clause is, when it applies, and what it costs. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the nature of a clause generator makes the output obvious. Given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete.
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 parameter schema is empty (only additionalProperties: true) and the description provides no information about what parameters, if any, are expected or accepted. Since schema coverage is effectively 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining input requirements, leaving the caller without guidance.
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 generating a French retention-of-title clause under C. com. L.624-16, specifying that goods remain the seller's property until full payment. It also explicitly scopes the tool to goods and excludes pure services, leaving no ambiguity about its 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?
The description provides an explicit exclusion ('Not for pure services'), which implies the tool is intended for sale-of-goods contexts. However, it does not name alternative tools or give a positive 'when to use' beyond that exclusion, so guidance is present but not fully explicit.
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.