french-admin-mcp

verifier_convention_collective

Verify rights under French collective agreements: notice periods, trial periods, special leave, and indemnities. Enter the agreement IDCC or keyword.

Instructions

Vérifie les droits sous une convention collective française : préavis, période d'essai, congés spéciaux, indemnités. Couvre les CC les plus courantes (Syntec, Métallurgie, Commerce, Transport, Particulier employeur).

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": {
      "recherche": "<recherche>"
    },
    "name": "verifier_convention_collective"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recherche`	Yes	IDCC (ex: 1486 pour Syntec) ou mot-clé (ex: 'informatique', 'transport', 'commerce')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Jun 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists covered rights and CCs but omits details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or behavior for unsupported CCs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose and scope.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Adequately explains functionality and input format given single parameter and no output schema. Could improve by describing return format or limitations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the single parameter. The description adds value by specifying covered CCs, clarifying the scope of valid inputs beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly specifies verb 'Vérifie' and resource 'droits sous une convention collective française', lists examples of rights and covered CCs. Distinguishes from siblings by topic but lacks explicit differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage for checking collective agreement rights but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives among siblings.

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