Skip to main content
Glama
cturkieh

France Data MCP

by cturkieh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

reconcilier_finess_sirene

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-references FINESS DREES with SIRENE INSEE to compute a Sørensen-Dice similarity score for candidate SIRETs, helping validate or reject num_finess ↔ SIRET pairings.

Instructions

Croise FINESS DREES ↔ SIRENE INSEE V3.11 et calcule un score de cohérence (Sørensen-Dice sur bigrammes) pour chaque SIRET candidat. Utile pour confirmer/infirmer un appariement num_finess ↔ SIRET avant prospection ou cross-check qualité.

Logique :

  1. Récupère FINESS (raison sociale + adresse libellée)

  2. Récupère SIRET candidats via la table RPPS

  3. Pour chaque SIRET, lookup SIRENE puis calcule 3 sous-scores :

    • nom : Dice sur raison sociale (FINESS vs SIRENE.uniteLegale)

    • adresse : Dice sur adresse complète

    • telephone : binaire 0/1 (toujours 0 actuellement : SIRENE n'expose pas le tel)

  4. Score global = pondération (nom 0.5, adresse 0.4, tel 0.1)

  5. Verdict brut : match (≥0.8) / partial (0.5..0.8) / mismatch (<0.5)

Algorithme PUBLIC (Sørensen-Dice est dans la littérature depuis 1948). Aucune valeur ajoutée Unilabs ici — c'est une primitive ouverte. La connaissance propriétaire (mapping enseignes ↔ SELAS) reste côté Geo Intel.

Format : objet LookupResult. Quand found: true, retourne { num_finess, candidates, skipped } :

  • candidates : tableau trié par score_global décroissant (meilleur match en premier)

  • skipped : SIRET candidats qu'on n'a PAS pu réconcilier (lookup SIRENE rejected ou not_found) avec la reason. Permet au caller de distinguer 'aucun SIRET candidat trouvé' (found: false LookupResult.not_found) de 'N SIRETs candidats mais tous rejetés par SIRENE' (candidates: [] + skipped: [...]).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
num_finessYesNuméro FINESS exact (9 chiffres).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
foundYes
lookupStatusYes
keyNoClé recherchée (SIREN, num_finess, code INSEE, …).
messageNoExplication actionnable quand `found=false` (cause probable + remédiation).

Tool Definition Quality

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) indicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the algorithm (Sørensen-Dice on bigrams), score calculation, verdict thresholds, and output structure, going beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections, front-loads the core purpose, and is detailed. However, it is somewhat lengthy and could be more concise by omitting less critical details (e.g., algorithm being public).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description thoroughly covers behavior, edge cases (skipped SIRETs), scoring logic, and output format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%. The schema already describes 'num_finess' as 'Numéro FINESS exact (9 chiffres).' The description adds context that it's used to fetch FINESS data, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: cross-referencing FINESS DREES and SIRENE INSEE to compute a coherence score for each SIRET candidate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'etablissement_by_finess' and 'etablissement_by_siret' by focusing on reconciliation.

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 description indicates the tool is useful for confirming or refuting a FINESS-SIRET match before prospecting or quality cross-check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cturkieh/france-data-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server