get_loanRetourne le détail complet d'un emprunt immobilier avec un résumé financier : capital, taux, durée, mensualité, assurance, coût total, intérêts et assurances de l'année courante.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loan_id | Yes |
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 annotation readOnlyHint=true aligns with the description's 'retourne' (returns). The description adds some context by enumerating the returned financial fields, but does not disclose error handling, required permissions, or other behavioral details. With annotations already covering safety, the added value is moderate.
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 sentence that efficiently lists the key return fields without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though the enumeration makes it slightly long; each item is relevant and adds value.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value by listing the financial summary fields. However, it does not address input parameter format, error responses, or how this relates to the loan schedule tool, which would improve completeness.
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 has one required parameter, loan_id (integer), with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the identifier's role or format.
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 returns the complete details of a real estate loan with a financial summary listing key fields (capital, rate, duration, etc.). It identifies the resource (loan) and the action (retrieve), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_loan_schedule or list_loans.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_loan_schedule or list_loans. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.
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.