HelpMyAgent

French Property Risks

real_estate_fr_risks

Returns the types of natural and technological risks recorded by Géorisques/GASPAR for the municipality of a French property location. Use when: Screen the municipality of a French property location for recorded risk types. Avoid when: Do not interpret municipality-level risk presence as parcel-level exposure. Limitations: This endpoint works at municipality level and is not a regulatory parcel-level risk statement. Price: 0.010 USD per call via x402. Paid-call behavior: source records are not modified, but a successful invocation can consume the advertised x402 payment; the payment-required challenge is free, and repeating the tool after a completed paid invocation may require a new payment. Accepted x402 networks: eip155:8453, xrpl:0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No	Optional value for “address” as defined by this API contract. (minimum length 5; maximum length 250).
`code_insee`	No	Optional value for “code insee” as defined by this API contract.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`risks`	Yes	Structured value returned for “risks” as defined by this API contract.
`scope`	Yes	Structured value returned for “scope” as defined by this API contract. (allowed values: commune).
`location`	Yes	Structured value returned for “location” as defined by this API contract.
`risk_count`	Yes	Structured value returned for “risk count” as defined by this API contract.
`limitations`	No	Known interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result.
`generated_at`	Yes	UTC timestamp at which this derived result was generated.
`source_status`	Yes	Availability status of the relevant upstream public source. (allowed values: ok).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "location",
-  "scope",
-  "source_status",
-  "risk_count",
-  "risks",
-  "generated_at",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "location",
+  "scope",
+  "source_status",
+  "risk_count",
+  "risks",
+  "generated_at"
+]

AddedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no helpful annotations (all hints are false), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the municipality-only limitation, non-regulatory nature, x402 payment cost, payment consumption behavior on repeat calls, accepted networks, and that source records are not modified.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core function, then organized into clearly labeled sections for usage, limitations, pricing, paid-call behavior, and accepted networks. Every line earns its place; the structured format makes the important caveats scannable for an agent.

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?

Given that an output schema exists plus a small two-parameter input schema, the description covers all operational essentials: purpose, usage boundaries, limitations, cost, payment side effects, and supported networks. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and set expectations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details, and it does not. The 'at least one' requirement is already stated in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Returns the types of natural and technological risks recorded by Géorisques/GASPAR for the municipality of a French property location.' It clearly identifies the geographic scope (municipality) and distinguishes this from parcel-level risk tools among its siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, including a clear warning not to treat municipality-level risk as parcel-level exposure. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for parcel-level risk, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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

All HelpMyAgent 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.

Resources

Need Help?