Deposit a base64 file (max 10 MB) into the lockers of one or more recipients, with user validation of file and recipients.
Dépose un fichier (base64, 10 Mo maximum) dans le casier d'une ou plusieurs personnes. Faire valider le fichier et les destinataires par l'utilisateur.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nom_fichier | Yes | ||
| destinataires | Yes | Identifiants des destinataires (voir `casier_destinataires`). | |
| contenu_base64 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the 10 MB size limit, the base64 encoding requirement, and an explicit user-confirmation step before committing.
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 sentences, no filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of the constraint and the confirmation instruction. Slightly terse given the absence of any param-level detail for nom_fichier.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description covers encoding, size cap, and confirmation, which are the key operational facts for a deposit tool. It omits error/failure behavior and the meaning of nom_fichier, leaving small but real gaps for a multi-recipient write operation.
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 description coverage is only 33% – nom_fichier and contenu_base64 are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by stating the base64 format and 10 MB cap for the content, but adds nothing for nom_fichier, leaving one required parameter explained only by its name.
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?
The description pairs a specific verb ("Dépose") with a specific resource and destination ("un fichier ... dans le casier d'une ou plusieurs personnes"), which clearly separates it from casier_lister, casier_telecharger, and casier_supprimer. It does not explicitly name or contrast against the closest sibling, documents_deposer, so differentiation relies on the agent knowing the casier namespace.
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?
The second sentence prescribes a workflow step ("Faire valider le fichier et les destinataires par l'utilisateur"), giving implied usage context. However, it gives no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and does not clarify casier_deposer versus documents_deposer or messaging attachment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.