get_simulationCompare le régime micro-BIC et le régime réel pour une année donnée. Retourne : revenus bruts, résultats micro-BIC (50% ou 30% selon classement), résultat réel (après charges et amortissements), avantage fiscal, recommandation, et économie d'impôt estimée pour différentes TMI. Tous les montants sont en euros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| abatement | 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?
With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds meaningful context by enumerating the exact return fields (gross income, results, advantage, recommendation, estimated savings) and clarifying that all amounts are in euros. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 main purpose, followed by a structured list of return values. Every sentence provides useful information without 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and output list, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks parameter details and fails to differentiate from the similar sibling tool, making it only partially complete 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly references the 'year' parameter and possibly the 'abatement' parameter via the 50%/30% deduction. The 'abatement' parameter is never explicitly explained, leaving the agent to guess its valid values and effect.
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 compares micro-BIC and real regimes for a given year and lists specific outputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'compare_micro_bic', so it stops short of a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_micro_bic'. The description implies a yearly simulation but provides no exclusions or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
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.