André — Analyse électorale française

Divisions administratives

query_admin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query French administrative divisions by name, code, or postal code to find communes, EPCIs, cantons, departments, and regions.

Instructions

Requête les divisions administratives françaises.

Actions : search_commune, get_commune, search_postal, list_epci, get_epci, list_cantons, list_departements, list_regions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "query_admin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`epci_code`	No
`postal_code`	No
`search_term`	No
`commune_code`	No
`departement_code`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds the list of actions, which clarifies what queries are possible, but does not explain how parameters interact with each action or any other behavioral detail.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It wastes no words, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing necessary details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (router to multiple queries with 6 parameters and siblings), the description is incomplete. It omits details on how parameters map to actions, return values, and when to use each action.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description only lists possible action values but does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter, including the required 'action' parameter. This is a critical gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it queries French administrative divisions and lists specific actions, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_elections, though the title and action names imply the domain.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The list of actions hints at its scope, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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

Deploy Server