Skip to main content
Glama

Frigolog HACCP — French Food Safety Compliance

by io.github.naimterrache-a11y

get_seuils_microbiologiques

Retourne les critères microbiologiques réglementaires applicables aux denrées alimentaires conformément au règlement (CE) n° 2073/2005 modifié par le règlement (CE) n° 1441/2007. Couvre les critères de sécurité des denrées (Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli STEC, entérotoxines staphylococciques, histamine) et les critères d'hygiène des procédés (E. coli, Enterobacteriaceae, germes aérobies). Pour chaque critère : catégorie d'aliment, germe, plan d'échantillonnage (n, c, m, M), stade d'application (mise sur le marché / fin de fabrication), action en cas de dépassement. Signale l'évolution du critère Listeria au 1er juillet 2026 (UE 2024/2895).

[EN] Returns the regulatory microbiological criteria for foodstuffs under Regulation (EC) 2073/2005 (amended by 1441/2007): food-safety criteria (Salmonella, Listeria, STEC E. coli, staphylococcal enterotoxins, histamine) and process-hygiene criteria, with the sampling plan (n, c, m, M), application stage and action on exceedance. Note: Listeria criterion changes from 1 July 2026 (EU 2024/2895). Optional 'categorie'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categorieNoCatégorie d'aliment. Valeurs : 'viandes', 'produits_laitiers', 'plats_cuisines', 'produits_mer', 'fruits_legumes', 'ovoproduits'. Si absent ou non reconnu, renvoie toutes les catégories.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool returns, the optional parameter behavior (returns all if absent), and notes a future regulatory change. No contradictions or hidden traits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is comprehensive but relatively long due to bilingual content and thorough listing of criteria. It front-loads the main purpose, but could be more concise without losing clarity. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of the domain and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the regulatory texts, lists all criteria types, sampling plan details, application stages, and even a future change. No gaps apparent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds meaningful context: the behavior when 'categorie' is absent or unrecognized (returns all categories). This enriches the schema's enum list with real-world usage semantics.

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 microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, specifying both safety and hygiene categories and detailed elements like sampling plans. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other aspects of HACCP or compliance.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implicitly indicates when to use (e.g., when needing microbiological criteria), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons to alternatives among siblings. There is no 'use X instead' statement.

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