French artisan RM invoice mention: 'RM Pau 404 833 048' from city + SIREN/SIRET. Format only. RNE replaced RM for new filings in 2023; invoice usage still shows RM. 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Format only' is a useful signal that this is a formatting tool rather than a validation or lookup tool, but the description does not explain the output shape, how inputs are accepted (given the open additionalProperties schema), or any edge cases. The 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' sentence is irrelevant noise that detracts from behavioral clarity.
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 explanation is tight — purpose, format example, and RNE context in two sentences. However, the trailing 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is irrelevant to tool selection or invocation and should be removed. Slightly above minimum for structure but not exceptional.
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 format example ('RM Pau 404 833 048') and the RNE/RM context are genuinely helpful and cover the 'why/when' dimension. However, with no output schema and an open input schema, the description does not clarify how to supply the city + SIREN/SIRET inputs (property names) or what the exact output string looks like beyond the example. Missing input-handling details keep this from being 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?
There are zero structured parameters (baseline 4), and the description compensates by naming the expected inputs: 'city + SIREN/SIRET'. This adds meaning beyond the open schema, which otherwise provides no parameter definitions. The description does not specify the exact property names an agent should pass, but the concept of the inputs is conveyed.
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?
States a specific purpose: generating the French artisan RM invoice mention formatted as 'RM Pau 404 833 048' from city + SIREN/SIRET. The verb (format/generate) is implied rather than explicit, and it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like rcs_mention by focusing on RM rather than RCS. Purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent to route correctly.
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?
Provides useful temporal context — 'RNE replaced RM for new filings in 2023; invoice usage still shows RM' — which tells an agent when RM is still applicable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., rcs_mention for RCS registrations) or state when NOT to use this tool. Usage guidance is present but implicit.
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.