French siège social invoice mention (L441-9): street + postcode + city, department prefix, Alsace-Moselle flag. Format only, not a Kbis. 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 carries the full burden. It does disclose that it is 'Format only, not a Kbis', which clarifies a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a static string or template), any side effects, or the meaning of the 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' note, which is cryptic and potentially confusing.
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 mostly concise and front-loads the core purpose, but the appended 'Paid $0.01 USDC Base x402' is irrelevant to the tool's function and could mislead or distract an agent. This reduces clarity and structural efficiency.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete in explaining what the mention contains and that it is format-only. However, it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., whether it returns a ready-to-use string or a template with placeholders), and the unrelated payment note adds noise. With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail on the return value would improve completeness.
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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 the tool's purpose: generating the French siège social invoice mention (L441-9) with specific components (street, postcode, city, department prefix, Alsace-Moselle flag). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a Kbis, which differentiates it from sibling tools like rcs_mention or rm_mention.
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 implies usage for French invoice legal mentions and explicitly says 'Format only, not a Kbis', which clarifies when not to use it (for Kbis). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over other mention tools like mention_fields or rcs_mention, leaving the selection to inference.
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.