create_property_workCrée un poste de travaux immobiliers amortissables pour un bien LMNP. Le montant est en euros. La durée d'amortissement est de 10 ans par défaut. L'amortissement annuel est calculé automatiquement en tenant compte de la quote-part si le poste n'est pas dédié.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| tva_rate | No | ||
| work_date | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| property_id | Yes | ||
| is_dedicated | No | ||
| duration_years | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: amount is in euros, default 10-year depreciation, automatic annual depreciation calculation, and quote-part handling for non-dedicated items. It does not contradict the destructiveHint=true annotation, though the annotation is not explained. The description could mention irreversible effects, but it already reveals key calculation behaviors.
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 3 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema attributes. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a destructive hint annotation, the description should explain more: required parameters, return values, and any side effects. It focuses on the depreciation calculation but omits essential operational details like what is returned or how tva_rate and work_date are used, making it incomplete for a create tool.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It explains 'amount' unit, 'duration_years' default, and 'is_dedicated' affects quote-part, but it leaves property_id, description, work_date, and tva_rate completely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter create operation.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Crée un poste de travaux immobiliers amortissables pour un bien LMNP' (Creates a depreciable real estate work item for a LMNP property). This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_expense or create_furniture by focusing on 'travaux' (work) and 'amortissables' (depreciable).
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 implies usage context (for LMNP properties) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_expense or create_furniture. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, so the agent must infer from the name and context.
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 set contains two almost identical comparison tools: compare_micro_bic and get_simulation both compute micro-BIC vs réel and recommend the best regime. This creates a direct selection conflict. Other tools are mostly distinct, but this overlap is significant.
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern consistently, with list_properties, create_income, delete_expense, etc. Minor deviations exist such as compare_micro_bic (no standard noun) and the plural/singular mismatch between delete_document and export_documents, but these are easily understood.
With 44 tools, the surface is very large for an MCP server. While the LMNP domain is broad, the number exceeds the typical range and will be hard for agents to navigate efficiently. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., get_simulation absorbs compare_micro_bic).
The set covers CRUD for properties, incomes, expenses, furniture, and works, plus documents and fiscal computations. However, there is no create/update/delete for loans (only compute and get), no delete_property, and no update for property components. These gaps could block common workflows.