Skip to main content
Glama
cturkieh

France Data MCP

by cturkieh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

reconcilier_finess_sirene

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-references a FINESS number with SIRENE business registry to compute a coherence score (Sørensen-Dice) for each candidate SIRET, validating or invalidating the match for prospection 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral detail beyond annotations: the algorithm (Sørensen-Dice on bigrams), scoring formula, verdict thresholds, and output structure including the skipped field. It also notes the algorithm is public and no proprietary value. This fully satisfies transparency.

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 detailed and well-structured with clear sections (intro, logic, algorithm note, format). While a bit long, every part adds value. It is front-loaded with purpose and provides all necessary details without redundancy.

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, full schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description is highly complete. It covers algorithm, scoring, verdicts, and nuanced output like skipped. The agent has all needed context to use 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?

The single parameter num_finess is fully described in the schema as 'Numéro FINESS exact (9 chiffres)'. The description does not add further detail for this parameter, but the schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states it crosses FINESS DREES with SIRENE INSEE and calculates a coherence score using Sørensen-Dice. It distinguishes itself from siblings like etablissement_by_finess and finess_sirene_coverage_in_radius by focusing on reconciliation with a detailed scoring mechanism.

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 states it is useful for confirming/rejecting a num_finess ↔ SIRET mapping before prospecting or quality cross-check. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools.

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