Skip to main content
Glama

Frigolog HACCP — French Food Safety Compliance

by io.github.naimterrache-a11y

get_allergenes_reglementaires

Retourne la liste des 14 allergènes à déclaration obligatoire en France conformément au règlement UE 1169/2011 (INCO) applicable depuis le 13 décembre 2014 : gluten (blé, seigle, orge, avoine), crustacés, œufs, poissons, arachides, soja, lait (lactose), fruits à coque (8 types), céleri, moutarde, graines de sésame, anhydride sulfureux et sulfites, lupin, mollusques. Pour chaque allergène : noms communs, sources principales, sources cachées non évidentes, obligation d'affichage en restauration et sanction en cas d'omission.

[EN] Returns the 14 mandatory allergens under EU Regulation 1169/2011 (INCO): common names, main and hidden sources, display obligation, penalties. Optional 'allergene'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allergeneNoFiltre optionnel par allergène. Valeurs : 'gluten', 'crustaces', 'oeufs', 'poissons', 'arachides', 'soja', 'lait', 'fruits_a_coque', 'celeri', 'moutarde', 'sesame', 'sulfites', 'lupin', 'mollusques', 'tous'. Si absent ou 'tous', renvoie les 14 allergènes.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains what the tool returns (names, sources, obligations, penalties) and the optional parameter. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only retrieval, the behavioral context is sufficiently conveyed.

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 well-structured with two paragraphs, front-loading the purpose. The list of allergens is somewhat lengthy but adds value. It is concise enough for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the output content (names, sources, obligations, penalties). With one optional parameter fully documented, the description is complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter. The description adds context about the filter being optional and defaulting to all allergens, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the list of 14 mandatory allergens under EU Regulation 1169/2011, including common names, sources, display obligations, and penalties. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on other HACCP or food safety aspects.

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 clearly indicates the tool is used to retrieve allergen information, with an optional filter. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context and sibling names make the usage context clear.

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