Skip to main content
Glama

UpGrowth: business data for Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco

by io.github.Z4KARY
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get the support schemes, labels and investment rules of Algeria

get_support_schemes
Read-only

Get the business support schemes and investment rules of Algeria as the Journal officiel sets them, each item with who it applies to, its amount when the text gives one, its article and the official Journal officiel issue: investment law 22-18 and its 2022 decrees (the investment regimes and their advantages and durations, the zones of particular interest, the structuring investments, the guarantees including the transfer of capital and income, the non-eligible activities, and the processing fees of the Algerian investment promotion agency AAPI: 60,000 DA for the registration certificate of a project under 2 billion DA, 400,000 DA for a larger or a foreign one, decree 22-299 art. 23), the start-up, innovative project, incubator and scale-up labels (decree 20-254 as amended in 2021 and 2025) and the tax advantages of the start-up and incubator labels (finance law 2026 arts 100 and 101: 4 years plus 2 on renewal for a start-up, 2 years renewable for an incubator; decree 21-170 as amended in 2023 for the list of equipment), the NESDA scheme (conditions of article 2: project holders aged 18 to 55 with a diploma, a qualification or recognised know-how, own funds and no earlier aid; self-financed micro-enterprise; rent loan up to 500,000 DA) and the CNAC transitional articles abrogated with its statute (decree 26-258; the pending files and the scheme of decree 03-514 marked À VÉRIFIER). The investment law still names the professional activity tax, which the 2024 finance law abolished; its article 79 replaces such references, as the case may be, by the local solidarity tax, so the IBS exemption applies and the TAP part is marked À VÉRIFIER. The micro-credit (ANGEM) amounts and the NESDA and CNAC financing levels are left out on purpose (they were amended several times and the whole chain of texts is not read): do not quote figures for them. A point the published text leaves open is marked TO VERIFY (À VÉRIFIER) in the item. Filters: q (words, accents ignored, e.g. redevance, transfert, label) and treatment (investment_regime, investment_zone, investment_guarantee, investment_fees, non_eligible, label, startup_tax, nesda, cnac). Algeria only (country DZ); other countries return country_not_available.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoWords that must all appear in the item (label, who, amount, legal basis), accents and case ignored, for example redevance, transfert, label, NESDA.
langNoLanguage of the labels, notes and attribution text in the answer: fr (French, the default), ar (Arabic) or en (English).fr
countryNoCountry of the data, an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code in any letter case: DZ for Algeria, the default, TN for Tunisia or MA for Morocco. Only live countries answer: list_countries shows them and their datasets. Any other country, or a dataset the country does not have (for example the activity nomenclature for Morocco), returns country_not_available. Without an API key only DZ answers: TN and MA return key_required.DZ
treatmentNoOnly the items of this kind.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and closed-world, and the description layers substantial extra context on top: explicit error codes (country_not_available, key_required without an API key), data-quality flags (À VÉRIFIER / TO VERIFY on open points), and a clear statement of what is deliberately omitted and must not be quoted. That is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence runs roughly 300 words and packs exhaustive legal citation (article numbers, decree dates, fee amounts, tax articles) that belongs in the returned data, not the tool selector. The density actively harms scannability, so this is over-specification rather than conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and four optional parameters, the description carries the full burden of saying what comes back, how items are annotated, which categories exist, and what happens on out-of-scope input or missing credentials. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of q examples ('redevance, transfert, label') and the full treatment enum list is largely redundant. It adds no syntax, format or interaction detail beyond what the structured fields already provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get the business support schemes and investment rules of Algeria as the Journal officiel sets them') and enumerates the exact domain it covers (law 22-18 and decrees, labels, NESDA, CNAC), which no sibling such as search_jo_text or get_jo_act duplicates. An agent can tell what this returns 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Gives operative guidance for querying (q and treatment filters, with examples) and dictates how to treat results ('do not quote figures' for micro-credit, NESDA and CNAC financing; country DZ only, others return country_not_available). However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition that should route the agent elsewhere.

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

All UpGrowth: business data for Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco toolsInspect
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.

Resources