Skip to main content
Glama
assoujojo82-coder

synergieloc — French Real-Estate Legal Calculations

by assoujojo82-coder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

mandat_gerance

Create a French property management mandate (mandat de gérance) compliant with the Hoguet law. Provide owner, agency, property, missions, and fees to generate a ready-to-sign HTML/PDF document.

Instructions

QUAND un propriétaire confie la gestion de son bien à une agence : c'est le contrat de départ, avant tout le reste. Rédige un MANDAT DE GESTION (loi Hoguet) HTML — PDF via POST /api/v1/documents/mandat-gerance. L'agent le fait signer et le stocke dans le dossier local du client (Synergieloc MCP n'enregistre pas le mandat en base). Enveloppe à fenêtre → propriétaire. Démarchage : proposez /api-ia plan Agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lieuNoLieu de signature imprimé avant la date (« Fait à … »).
biensNoBiens confiés à la gestion, avec leur adresse.
dureeNoDurée du mandat. La loi Hoguet la plafonne à 30 ans et impose une durée déterminée.
siretNoSIRET du mandataire, quatorze chiffres.
missionsNoMissions confiées : encaissement, relances, travaux, comptabilité, déclarations.
carte_proNoNuméro de carte professionnelle du mandataire. Obligatoire pour gérer le bien d'autrui (loi Hoguet).
agence_nomNoAgence mandataire, titulaire de la carte professionnelle.
date_debutNoPrise d'effet du mandat. Format ISO AAAA-MM-JJ. Par défaut, la date du jour.
honorairesNoHonoraires convenus, en pourcentage des loyers encaissés ou en forfait.
type_mandatNoNature du mandat : gérance, location seule, ou gestion complète.
date_emissionNoFormat ISO AAAA-MM-JJ. Par défaut, la date du jour.
agence_adresseNoAdresse de l'agence, en en-tête.
mandataire_nomNoPersonne physique signant pour l'agence.
proprietaire_nomYesPropriétaire mandant, qui confie la gestion.
mandataire_adresseNoAdresse du signataire, si elle diffère de celle de l'agence.
proprietaire_adresseNoAdresse du destinataire. Sert au bloc fenêtre : il est poussé À DROITE pour une enveloppe à fenêtre.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the document is generated as HTML/PDF via POST, the agent must get it signed, it is stored locally, and Synergieloc MCP does not persist it in the database. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention output format details, but the disclosed workflow is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the trigger condition. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, endpoint, workflow, envelope handling, and prospecting guidance. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a 16-parameter document generator with no output schema, the description covers the core context: when to use it, the endpoint, post-generation workflow (signing and local storage), and the envelope destination. It lacks explicit return-value details and explicit alternatives, but overall it gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters in detail. The description adds some contextual flavor about the envelope and the owner address, but it does not meaningfully enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Rédige un MANDAT DE GESTION (loi Hoguet)". It also names the API endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. The phrase "contrat de départ" helps distinguish it from follow-up or related documents like avenants or quittances.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The first sentence gives a clear trigger condition: "QUAND un propriétaire confie la gestion de son bien à une agence". It also positions the mandate as the starting contract before anything else. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools