Versions et fraîcheur du référentiel — Millésime courant, historique des versions, cadence et prochaine revue globale, niveaux de fiabilité — pour savoir de quand datent les valeurs et quand elles seront re-vérifiées. (sources: 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates what information the tool returns: current vintage, history, cadence, next global review, and reliability levels. It also mentions the underlying source version, giving useful provenance. It does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only, but the content strongly implies a non-mutating informational query.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Versions et fraîcheur du référentiel') and then specifies the concrete outputs. Every clause adds useful information, including the source provenance. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains what the tool reports, why an agent would call it, and which source version it reflects. Nothing essential appears missing for a straightforward informational endpoint.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter ambiguity. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead contextualizes the tool's output. The mention of the source file is a helpful extra detail rather than a parameter explanation.
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 identifies the resource as the referential's version and freshness metadata, covering current vintage, historical versions, cadence, and next review. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like referentiel_valeur and referentiel_recherche by focusing on temporal metadata rather than values or search. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the intended action is unambiguous.
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 states the use case: knowing how old the referential values are and when they will be re-verified. This is clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the zero-parameter nature and clear scope make the intended usage evident.
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.