Prix au m² communal, synthèse de marché et formalité d'urbanisme, sur données publiques françaises.
Scored across 3 tools
demarche_urbanisme_projet is clearly distinct from the other two, but marche_commune and prix_m2_commune both provide price per m², which could cause misselection. However, the descriptions clarify that one is a broader synthesis and the other a specific reference price, so boundaries are mostly clear.
All tool names use snake_case, are in French, and follow a descriptive noun-based pattern. The naming is consistent in style, though it lacks the verb_noun convention seen in many APIs, and demarche_urbanisme_projet is noticeably longer and structurally different.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for a focused French real estate data server. Each tool covers a distinct area (urbanism procedures, market overview, price reference) without bloat or excessive overlap.
The tool set covers the core domains of communal market data, price references, and urbanism formalities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct PLU/servitude lookups, no individual property estimates), but these are explicitly excluded in descriptions, and agents can work around them with parameters or external references.
Quelle formalité d'urbanisme pour un projet de travaux (aucune, déclaration préalable, permis de construire, d'aménager ou de démolir), quel formulaire Cerfa, un architecte est-il obligatoire, quelles pièces, quel délai d'instruction. Chaque conclusion porte sa règle et sa source, et la base de règles porte sa date. Un fait manquant revient en question, jamais en supposition. Sans adresse : ce connecteur ne lit ni le PLU ni les servitudes, les protections du terrain sont à déclarer en paramètres. Information générale, ni conseil juridique ni décision de la mairie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spr | No | Le terrain est-il en site patrimonial remarquable ? | |
| bassin_m2 | No | Surface du bassin d'une piscine, en m². | |
| demandeur | No | Qui dépose la demande (compte pour l'obligation d'architecte). | |
| hauteur_m | No | Hauteur du projet, en mètres (hauteur du mur pour un mur). | |
| changement | No | Pour un changement de destination : porte-t-il sur la destination ou sur une sous-destination ? | |
| erp_ou_igh | No | S'agit-il d'un établissement recevant du public ou d'un immeuble de grande hauteur ? | |
| pac_visible | No | L'unité extérieure de la pompe à chaleur est-elle visible depuis l'espace public ? | |
| site_classe | No | Le terrain est-il en site classé ? | |
| site_inscrit | No | Le terrain est-il en site inscrit ? | |
| type_travaux | Yes | Nature du projet. Obligatoire. | |
| zone_urbaine | No | Le terrain est-il en zone urbaine du PLU, si connu ? | |
| modifie_volume | No | Les travaux modifient-ils le volume du bâtiment ? | |
| inclut_demolition | No | Le projet inclut-il une démolition ? | |
| reserve_naturelle | No | Le terrain est-il en réserve naturelle ? | |
| document_urbanisme | No | Document d'urbanisme de la commune, si connu. | |
| piscine_demontable | No | La piscine est-elle démontable ? | |
| coeur_parc_national | No | Le terrain est-il en cœur de parc national ? | |
| element_protege_plu | No | Le bâtiment est-il protégé par le PLU (art. L151-19 ou L151-23) ? | |
| equipements_communs | No | La division crée-t-elle des voies, espaces ou équipements communs ? | |
| maison_individuelle | No | S'agit-il d'une maison individuelle ? | |
| monument_historique | No | Les travaux portent-ils sur un monument historique ? | |
| hauteur_couverture_m | No | Hauteur de la couverture d'une piscine, en mètres (0 si non couverte). | |
| visible_espace_public | No | Le projet est-il visible depuis l'espace public ? | |
| duree_installation_mois | No | Mois par an d'installation d'une piscine démontable. | |
| emprise_au_sol_creee_m2 | No | Emprise au sol créée par le projet, en m². | |
| duree_installation_jours | No | Jours par an d'installation d'une piscine démontable en espace protégé. | |
| modifie_aspect_exterieur | No | Les travaux modifient-ils l'aspect extérieur ? | |
| reparation_a_l_identique | No | S'agit-il d'une réparation à l'identique (mêmes matériaux, mêmes couleurs) ? | |
| surface_plancher_creee_m2 | No | Surface de plancher créée, en m² (0 pour un carport ouvert). | |
| abords_monument_historique | No | Le terrain est-il dans les abords d'un monument historique ? | |
| ravalement_change_couleurs | No | Le ravalement change-t-il les couleurs de la façade ? | |
| emprise_au_sol_existante_m2 | No | Emprise au sol du bâtiment existant, en m². | |
| travaux_structure_ou_facade | No | Des travaux touchent-ils les structures porteuses ou la façade ? | |
| surface_plancher_existante_m2 | No | Surface de plancher du bâtiment existant, en m². |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: missing facts come back as questions, never as assumptions; each conclusion carries its rule, source, and rule-base date; and the connector deliberately does not read PLU or servitudes without an address. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output and followed by behavioral rules and limitations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.
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?
Given the 34-parameter schema with 100% individual descriptions and no output schema, the description still provides what the agent needs: output semantics (rule, source, date), handling of missing data, and the key invocation limitation (no address means no automatic PLU/servitude reading). This is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-cutting meaning by explaining why many protection-related parameters exist ('les protections du terrain sont à déclarer en paramètres') and by clarifying that missing facts will be asked as follow-up questions, which helps an agent decide which optional parameters matter.
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 opens with the exact question the tool answers—which urban-planning formality applies to a works project—and enumerates concrete outputs: formality type, Cerfa form, architect obligation, required documents, and review delay. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which concern market prices and commune-level data.
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 important scope constraints: without an address, it does not read PLU or servitudes, and it provides general information, not legal advice or an official town-hall decision. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the siblings are in a different domain and the intended use is evident from the first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Synthèse publique du marché d'une commune : prix au m² appartement et maison, loyer médian au m² (DHUP), rendement brut théorique, évolution des prix sur 1, 3 et 5 ans, zone ABC de tension locative. C'est un aperçu : le score Pillr sur 100, ses sous-scores et l'analyse complète ne sont pas servis par ce connecteur, ils sont sur pillr.fr.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commune | Yes | Nom de la commune (« Bordeaux », « Lyon 7e », « Saint-Étienne ») ou code INSEE à 5 chiffres. Un code postal est accepté en dernier recours. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by clarifying that this is only a public overview, that the full Pillr score is not served, and that the complete analysis lives on pillr.fr.
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: it states the purpose and enumerates the returned data points in the first sentence, then adds the limitation in a short second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the main returned fields and explicitly stating what is excluded. Given the low complexity (one required parameter, read-only operation, no nested data), this is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention the shape or format of the response.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the commune parameter well with examples and accepted forms. The description itself does not add much beyond 'commune', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 (a commune) and the action (providing a public market synthesis) with a concrete list of what is included: prices per m², median rents, gross yield, price trends, and tension zone. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prix_m2_commune (price-only) and demarche_urbanisme_projet (urban planning procedure).
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 provides clear context about the tool's scope and even states what is not returned (the Pillr score and full analysis). However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the sibling tools or give alternative names, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prix de référence au mètre carré d'une commune française, appartement et maison, tel que Pillr le publie : valeur, provenance (mesurée sur les ventes DVF ou estimée), millésime et date de reconstruction. Un prix absent est dit absent, jamais deviné. C'est un repère de marché communal, pas l'estimation d'un bien précis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commune | Yes | Nom de la commune (« Bordeaux », « Lyon 7e », « Saint-Étienne ») ou code INSEE à 5 chiffres. Un code postal est accepté en dernier recours. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations: provenance is either measured from DVF sales or estimated, the result includes millésime and reconstruction date, and absent prices are reported as absent rather than guessed. This strongly informs correct interpretation of results.
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 information-dense: every sentence adds a distinct fact, and the core resource is front-loaded before provenance, absence semantics, and boundary notes. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It lists the returned data elements, explains provenance and absence behavior, and clarifies what the result is not, leaving little ambiguity for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 input schema already documents the single 'commune' parameter and its accepted forms with 100% schema_description_coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The description only adds general scope and does not repeat or extend the parameter formatting rules.
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 tool's resource and scope: a reference price per square meter for a French commune, covering apartment and house values, provenance, millésime, and reconstruction date. It also explicitly rules out per-property valuation, but it does not explicitly differentiate against the sibling tools by name.
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 a clear boundary: this is a communal market benchmark, not an estimate for a specific property, so an agent should not use it for property-level valuation. It gives enough context to infer when it is appropriate, though it does not mention sibling tools or alternative routes explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
demarche_urbanisme_projetmarche_communeprix_m2_communeDonnées immobilières DVF France : transactions, comparables GPS et statistiques de marché.
Données immobilières officielles françaises (DVF+, cadastre, DPE, risques, urbanisme) via MCP.
French housing data for every commune: sale prices, rents, property tax and rent control.
French address intelligence: 18.6M sold prices, energy, risk, crime and schools — each sourced.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
