Xynaptic Legal Brief FR — French legal watch by keyword: official sources (Légifrance, service-public.gouv.fr, ministères) search results with titles, links and snippets — labor law, contracts, regulations. GET ?q=licenciement. [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | query parameters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bodyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / params / descriptionPrevious value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"Input schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "q": {
+ "description": "example: \"licenciement\"",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "example: 6",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "sources": {
+ "description": "example: [\"legifrance.gouv.fr\",\"service-public.gouv.fr\"]",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the return shape (titles, links, snippets), the source set, and the per-call cost/payment rail (x402/USDC), which an agent genuinely needs. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or any free-tier/auth nuance beyond the price tag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence plus a bracketed price note; dense but no filler, and the resource and scope come first. The em-dash chain is slightly crammed but still readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the return fields, source scope, and cost, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the `results` and `sources` parameters are left entirely to the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example value for `q` ("licenciement") but says nothing about the `results` limit or `sources` filter beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb+resource (legal watch by keyword, French official sources) and enumerates the covered domains (labor law, contracts, regulations), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from news-eu, economy-news-fr, or company-news. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'search results … GET ?q=licenciement', which shows the invocation pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative for broader or non-French legal coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.