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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedMay 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that email and message are required and implies a non-destructive submission. However, it omits details like confirmation, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. It is ideally concise for an agent to quickly grasp.

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?

Given the simple nature of a contact submission and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and required fields. It slightly misses on workflow details (e.g., response handling) but is sufficient for effective tool use.

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 detailed property descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'collect email conversationally'), providing some contextual value but not significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: submitting contact requests (correction, feature request, question, or other). It specifies verb ('submit') and resource ('contact request'), and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on searches and data retrieval.

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 lists explicit use cases (report errors, suggest features, modify info, ask questions) and suggests a workflow ('collect email conversationally'). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and several descriptions explicitly disambiguate adjacent tools. The only mild risk is between search_associations/search_premium_associations and contact_association/submit_contact_request, but the descriptions give enough context to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 18 tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, e.g. get_association, search_associations, publish_association_update, report_unmet_demand. There is no mixing of camelCase, arbitrary verbs, or inconsistent styles.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain: search, detailed records, statistics, volunteering, contact, updates, and feedback. Each tool has a distinct role, so the count feels somewhat heavy but justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The registry surface is well covered: multiple search modes, authoritative association details, subsidies, similar/RUP/health subsets, departmental and national stats, and a way to contact or update associations. Minor gaps such as no direct email/phone lookup and no creation/deletion of registry records keep it from a perfect score.

Resources

Need Help?