Verifies batches of French Urssaf vigilance certificate security codes via the official API, returning a clear status for each code so you can validate contractor attestations.
Vérifie plusieurs codes de sécurité (lots de 100 par appel API). Renvoie un résultat par code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: a batch limit of 100 codes per API call and one result per code. It says nothing about error handling for malformed or unknown codes, authentication requirements, or whether the operation has side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the batch constraint front-loaded before the return behavior. Every clause conveys distinct information.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both safety profile and results. 'Un résultat par code' establishes cardinality but not what a result contains (valid/invalid status, reason codes), leaving a meaningful gap for a verification tool.
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 single 'codes' array parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by identifying the values as security codes and capping batches at 100, but it omits format expectations (length, character set, duplicates) that an agent needs to build valid input.
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 (verify multiple security codes) and makes the batch nature explicit with 'plusieurs codes', which implicitly separates it from the singular sibling verifier_attestation. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred from plurality rather than stated.
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?
'Lots de 100 par appel API' implies the batch use case and gives a practical batching threshold, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over verifier_attestation, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.