Lists construction project groups kept for compatibility, optionally filtered by status or client ID; use marge_client for margins.
Liste les chantiers (ancien regroupement, gardé pour compatibilité),
éventuellement filtrés par statut (en_cours, termine…) ou par client
(client_id = numéro du client dans le compte). Pour la marge, préférer
marge_client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| statut | No | ||
| dossier | No | ||
| client_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / dossierAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Dossier"
+}v0.2.0Input schema / properties / client_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Client Id"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a legacy grouping kept for compatibility and that it is a read/list operation, but says nothing about the return payload, pagination, or volume, which are the traits an agent would need for a list endpoint.
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?
Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the action, then filters, then the alternative-tool hint. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical about legacy status could be trimmed slightly.
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 simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, and routing reasonably well, but it leaves the `dossier` parameter and the shape of the returned list unexplained.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `statut` (en_cours, termine…) and `client_id` (numéro du client dans le compte), adding real meaning, but completely omits the `dossier` parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Liste les chantiers') and adds scope context ('ancien regroupement, gardé pour compatibilité') that helps distinguish it from newer siblings like `chantier` or `marge_chantier`. It does not fully disambiguate from the singular `chantier` sibling, keeping it from a 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?
Gives clear routing guidance — 'Pour la marge, préférer marge_client' — and describes filterable usage ('éventuellement filtrés par statut… ou par client'). It lacks explicit exclusions against other siblings such as `dossiers` or `chantier`, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.