french-admin-mcp

demarche_admin

Get step-by-step guidance through common French administrative procedures including ID card, passport, driving license, tax declaration, auto-entrepreneur creation, and vehicle registration.

Instructions

Guide étape par étape pour les démarches administratives françaises courantes : carte d'identité, passeport, permis de conduire, déclaration d'impôts, création auto-entrepreneur, carte grise.

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": {
      "demarche": "<demarche>"
    },
    "name": "demarche_admin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`demarche`	Yes	Nom de la démarche : carte_identite, passeport, permis_conduire, declaration_impots, creation_auto_entrepreneur, carte_grise. Ou un mot-clé pour rechercher.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Jun 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates it is a guide, implying read-only behavior, but no annotations are provided to confirm. It does not disclose output format, limitations, or whether any side effects occur. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and lists key procedures. It is front-loaded and concise, though could be structured as a list for clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the scope but lacks details on output format (e.g., text steps, links). It is minimally sufficient for an AI agent.

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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description repeats the list of démarches, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is a step-by-step guide for common French administrative procedures, listing specific examples like identity card, passport, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform calculations or simulations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies use for step-by-step guides, but does not contrast with alternatives like simuler_impots or declaration_urssaf.

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