French 14-day consumer withdrawal (C. conso L.221-18 / L.221-19). Services: from contract date. Goods: from delivery. Does not apply to professional buyers. 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?
There are no annotations, and the description provides minimal insight into side effects or costs. The phrase 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' hints at a payment or fee but is unexplained, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.
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 concise and packs several legal specifics into a short text. However, the inclusion of 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' feels out of place and slightly disrupts the flow, though it does not significantly harm clarity.
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 tool's purpose is fairly self-contained, but the description lacks any mention of what the tool returns or expects as input (beyond an empty schema). The payment reference is unexplained, leaving some context missing.
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, so there are no parameters to describe. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no further parameter information.
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 subject as French 14-day consumer withdrawal and provides key legal details (start dates for services and goods, exclusion of professional buyers). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'compute' or 'retrieve', making the tool's exact function slightly ambiguous.
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 states that it does not apply to professional buyers, which implicitly indicates a B2C context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling legal terms. Usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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.