query_adminRequête les divisions administratives françaises.
Actions : search_commune, get_commune, search_postal,
list_epci, get_epci, list_cantons, list_departements, list_regions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| epci_code | No | ||
| postal_code | No | ||
| search_term | No | ||
| commune_code | No | ||
| departement_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a list of supported actions, which provides some behavioral context, but does not elaborate on side effects or required permissions beyond what annotations imply.
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?
The description is short, but the list of actions could be better structured (e.g., bullet points). It achieves minimal conciseness but lacks readability.
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?
With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no explanation of actions or parameter relationships, the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but is not leveraged, leaving agents without essential invocation context.
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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters. It only lists action names without clarifying which parameters are relevant for each action or their formats. This is a critical gap.
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?
The description clearly states it queries French administrative divisions and lists specific sub-actions, making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like query_dlp or query_elections, which also perform queries.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or how to choose among the listed actions. The description lacks any conditional information or alternatives.
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.
The query_* tools are mostly cleanly separated by domain (elections, admin, DLP, élus, sociodem), and the output-oriented tools (map, table, visualization, export) are distinct. The main potential confusion is query_sql versus query_elections, since both can access election results, but the descriptions mitigate this by explicitly recommending query_elections for standard analysis.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb-first convention: query_* for data retrieval, and create_data_table, export_data, generate_map, simulate_fusions, and visualize for actions. There is no mixing of camelCase, inconsistent verb styles, or vague duplicate-like naming.
With 11 tools, the server is well within the ideal scope for a specialized electoral analysis toolset. Each query tool covers a coherent data domain, while mapping, visualization, export, table formatting, and simulation cover distinct workflow needs without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full electoral analysis workflow: querying results and administrative divisions, socio-demographic profiles, elected officials, municipal candidate data, mapping, custom visualizations, tabular formatting, export, and fusion simulation. The advanced panel actions in query_elections plus the read-only SQL fallback fill most conceivable gaps.