Capacités de Qotien (carte de planification) — Ce que le moteur sait faire et avec quelle fiabilité, par domaine — à appeler AVANT de choisir un outil, pour planifier et savoir quand hédger. Ne calcule rien. (sources: /api/fiscal/v1/manifest ; references_officielles.json v0.8.6)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool calculates nothing, cites its sources, and frames the content as reliability-per-domain. It could add whether it performs network calls or returns static data, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's identity and purpose. The parenthetical source detail adds a bit of clutter but overall every sentence contributes useful guidance.
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 meta tool, the description is fully adequate: it explains when to call it, what it returns conceptually, and what it does not do. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it correctly.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool does even though no input schema details are needed.
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 defines the tool as a capabilities map for Qotien, stating what it exposes (engine capabilities and reliability per domain). It also distinguishes itself from sibling calculation tools by explicitly saying 'Ne calcule rien.'
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?
It gives explicit timing guidance: call AVANT de choisir un outil, and states its role is planning and knowing when to hedge. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the exclusion of calculation ('Ne calcule rien') helps disambiguate from sibling fiscal/retraite tools.
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.
The tool families are clearly separated by domain prefixes (fiscal, retraite, referentiel), and the descriptions proactively distinguish near-neighbors such as fiscal_tmi vs fiscal_prelevements_sociaux and retraite_estimation vs retraite_pension_totale. Some initial confusion is possible between retraite_pension_regime and retraite_regimes, but the descriptions are detailed enough to resolve it.
Most tools follow a predictable snake_case domain_object pattern: fiscal_*, retraite_*, referentiel_*. The clear outlier is qotien_capacites, which uses a misspelled, non-domain prefix and breaks the otherwise consistent naming scheme.
With 18 tools, the server is heavier than the typical 3-15 sweet spot, though it is organized into recognizable fiscal, retirement, and referential clusters. The count is defensible for a two-domain server, but it begins to feel like a large MCP surface that agents must navigate carefully.
The server covers the main French income-tax and retirement calculation needs: income tax, marginal rate, social levies, CEHR, property capital-gains surtax, pension estimation, multi-regime totals, net pension, buybacks, progressive retirement, and parental surcharge. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit long-career early-retirement tool and pensions_fournies being referenced rather than exposed as a first-class tool—but agents can work around them.