Skip to main content
Glama

Frigolog HACCP — French Food Safety Compliance

by io.github.naimterrache-a11y

get_actions_correctives

Retourne les actions correctives réglementaires à mettre en place face aux 6 non-conformités les plus fréquentes en restauration : que faire en cas de frigo trop chaud, produit périmé en stock, rupture de chaîne du froid à la réception, livraison non conforme, présence de nuisibles ou plan de nettoyage non réalisé. Pour chaque non-conformité : action immédiate (30 premières minutes), action documentaire à inscrire dans le PMS, délai de résolution, conditions d'alerte DDPP et exemple concret de fiche de correction.

[EN] Returns regulatory corrective actions for the 6 most common catering non-conformities (fridge too warm, expired product, cold-chain break, non-compliant delivery, pests, cleaning not done): immediate action, PMS documentation, deadlines, when to alert the DDPP. Optional 'type_non_conformite'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
type_non_conformiteNoFiltre optionnel par type de non-conformité. Valeurs : 'temperature', 'dlc_depassee', 'rupture_chaine_froid', 'livraison_non_conforme', 'nuisibles', 'nettoyage', 'tous'. Si absent ou 'tous', renvoie l'ensemble des non-conformités.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description details the structure of the output (immediate action, documentation, deadlines, etc.) and the optional filter. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately conveys that this is a read-only information retrieval tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and structured with bullet points. However, the bilingual content (French and English) doubles the length unnecessarily, slightly reducing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the response structure for each non-conformity. It provides comprehensive context for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a description of the optional 'type_non_conformite' parameter with valid values. The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns regulatory corrective actions for 6 specific non-conformities in catering. It uses a specific verb ('retourne/returns') and resource ('actions correctives'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_haccp_temperatures' or 'get_regles_dlc'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly lists the 6 non-conformities and mentions an optional filter, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling tools cover different domains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Frigolog HACCP — French Food Safety Compliance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between get_haccp_temperatures and get_temperatures_cuisson (both about temperatures, but one storage/cooling, one cooking) and between get_rappels_produits_actifs and get_rappels_par_categorie_etablissement (the latter is a filtered version of the former). Nonetheless, descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is almost entirely 'get_<noun>', which is consistent. The exception is 'compare_solutions_haccp' which uses 'compare_' instead of 'get_', breaking the pattern. This is a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

19 tools cover a comprehensive range of HACCP-related topics for French catering. Each tool addresses a specific need without excessive overlap, and the number is well within the ideal 3-15 range, earning a high score.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major aspects of HACCP compliance in France: training, temperatures, cleaning plans, recalls, inspection risk, sanctions, allergens, DLC rules, etc. There are no obvious gaps for an informational/retrieval tool of this nature.

Resources