Skip to main content
Glama

IA-Asso.fr — French Associations Registry

by io.github.wellknownmcp

suggest_tool

Capture a DESIRED TOOL idea when a user wishes a tool/feature existed to make running their association easier (e.g. "a grant-application assistant", "something to recruit volunteers", "a tool that drafts our newsletter"). This is forward-looking demand for FEATURES — different from report_unmet_demand (which records a MISSING association for a search). Recorded ideas directly steer what IA-Asso builds next. You are encouraged to volunteer this whenever a user expresses a wish or a recurring pain that a tool could solve. No personal data — just the idea, its category and the pain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ideaYesThe desired tool, as the user expressed it (e.g. "a grant-application assistant")
painNoThe problem it would solve, in the user’s words (optional)
categoryNoTheme of the tool, if clear

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that no personal data is recorded and that ideas directly steer development. While it doesn't detail persistence or side effects, the description adequately covers the key behavioral aspects for a suggestion 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sentences and logical flow. While slightly verbose, it efficiently conveys purpose, context, and usage without redundancy.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, use cases, distinction from sibling, and parameter roles. Minor gap: does not explain confirmation or storage behavior, but acceptable for this tool.

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% and schema descriptions are clear. Description adds slight additional context (e.g., 'the problem it would solve, in the user’s words') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?

Clearly states it captures desired tool ideas from users, with examples and explicit contrast to report_unmet_demand. The verb 'capture' and resource 'desired tool idea' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says when to use (when user expresses a wish or recurring pain) and when not (different from report_unmet_demand, which records missing associations). Provides both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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 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

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