IA-Asso.fr — French Associations Registry

submit_contact_request

Submit a contact request to IA-Asso.fr (correction, feature request, question, or other). Used when users want to report errors, suggest features, modify association information, or ask questions. Requires user email and message. Workflow: collect email conversationally, then submit request. Requires an authenticated session (OAuth token or personal access token with scope contact:relay); anonymous agents should use contact_association instead, or point the user to https://ia-asso.fr/contact.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "submit_contact_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	User name (optional)
`type`	Yes	Type of request: correction (modify association info), feature_request (suggest feature), question (ask question), other (general inquiry)
`email`	Yes	User email address for follow-up (required, must be valid email)
`message`	Yes	Detailed description of the request (required, min 10 characters)
`association_id`	No	RNA ID of association if applicable (format: W followed by 9 digits)
`association_name`	No	Name of association if applicable

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (OAuth token or PAT with scope contact:relay), the required workflow of collecting the email conversationally before submitting, and the anonymous fallback path. It does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., whether the request is relayed by email or rate limits apply), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action and request types, then auth and alternatives; every sentence carries signal. The final sentence is dense with parenthetical clauses (token scopes, sibling name, URL) but remains readable and earns its length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, prerequisites, workflow sequence, and fallbacks — the critical decision inputs. The only real gap is outcome/response behavior after a successful submission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so field meanings and the type enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that email and message are required, adding no format, validation, or association-linking guidance beyond structured data — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a contact request to IA-Asso.fr') and enumerates the request categories it covers (correction, feature request, question, other). It also names the sibling tool it is not, contact_association, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly defines the triggering situations ('report errors, suggest features, modify association information, or ask questions') and states the alternative for the unauthenticated case ('anonymous agents should use contact_association instead'), plus a human fallback URL. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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

All IA-Asso.fr — French Associations Registry tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?