Sentinelle phyto FR

phyto_lookup

France pesticide authorisation and grace-period deadlines. For 1 to 20 plant protection products (AMM number or trade name, optional crop filter): is it still authorised, can it still be sold, can existing stocks still be used, and until which date, use by use, from the official Anses E-Phy register (grace period, art. 46 Reg. 1107/2009). For farm suppliers, co-ops, advisers, growers, landscapers, traceability software. Price: 0.01 USDC per call (x402).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "produits": "<produits>"
    },
    "name": "phyto_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`culture`	No
`produits`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the cost model (0.01 USDC per call via x402), the batch size limit of 20, the upstream data source (official Anses E-Phy register) and the legal basis (art. 46 Reg. 1107/2009). It does not cover failure behavior for unknown products or the exact reference-date semantics, which leaves a gap for a paid lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the input shape, then the questions answered, then audience and price. Dense and largely free of filler, though the audience list and price tail are more sales copy than operational guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully spells out what is returned per use (authorisation, sale, stock-use, deadlines). However, for a paid, unannotated tool with zero schema coverage, the undocumented 'date' parameter and absent error handling keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define all three parameters. It explains 'produits' (AMM number or trade name) and 'culture' (optional crop filter), but the 'date' parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess what reference date means for the authorisation assessment.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (lookup of French pesticide authorisation/grace-period status from the Anses E-Phy register) and enumerates exactly what is answered: still authorised, still sellable, stocks still usable, and until when. An agent can distinguish this from an example/sample sibling tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the operating envelope (1 to 20 products, AMM number or trade name, optional crop filter) and names the intended consumers (suppliers, co-ops, advisers, growers, landscapers, traceability software). It does not state exclusions or point to the sibling alternative, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sentinelle phyto FR tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.