Skip to main content
Glama
cturkieh

France Data MCP

by cturkieh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

reconcilier_finess_sirene

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-references FINESS and SIRENE registries, computing a Sørensen-Dice score on name and address to validate FINESS-to-SIRET matches for prospecting or quality checks.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds significant behavioral context: explains the three sub-scores, the weighting, the verdict thresholds, and notes that the telephone score is always 0 due to SIRENE limitations. It also clarifies the algorithm's public nature. No contradiction.

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 structured with numbered steps, bullet points, and clear sections. While relatively long, each sentence contributes meaning. Could be slightly more concise, but the organization compensates.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-step matching, scoring, output with candidates and skipped), the description is comprehensive. It explains the logic, output format, and interpretation of found vs. skipped. The presence of an output schema (not shown) would complement this, but the description already covers expectations well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (num_finess) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds that it must be exactly 9 digits, which enriches the schema definition. No further detail needed.

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 cross-references FINESS DREES with SIRENE INSEE and calculates a coherence score. It uses specific verbs ('Croise', 'calcule') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other health establishment queries.

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 explicitly mentions the tool is useful to confirm or refute a FINESS-to-SIRET matching before prospecting or quality cross-check. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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