mister-parc-mcp

Tendances

parc_tendances

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches daily fleet trend history: green/red rates, alerts, and overdue socle status across a chosen number of days, returning one point per day that changed.

Instructions

L'historique quotidien du parc, du plus ancien au plus récent : taux de vert, rouges, alertes, socle en retard. Un jour sans changement n'a pas de point.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "parc_tendances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jours`	No	Nombre de points, un par jour.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`historique`	Yes	Un point par jour, le plus ancien d'abord.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the series is sparse, since a day without change has no point, and points run oldest to newest. That is real context beyond schema and annotations, though response format is left to the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource and the ordered metric list, with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a read-only one-parameter tool, though the telegraphic metric list ('taux de vert, rouges') is slightly terse even for a French audience.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the single optional parameter is fully specified in the schema. What it supplies – historical scope, ordering, and sparsity – is sufficient to call it correctly; only the relationship to direct siblings like parc_etat is unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the `jours` parameter is already documented as 'Nombre de points, un par jour' with default and bounds. The description does not add further interpretation of the parameter (e.g., whether 'jours' means calendar days or returned points); baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource – the daily history of the fleet – along with the metrics it covers (taux de vert, rouges, alertes, socle en retard) and the ordering (oldest to newest). It is clearly distinct from the current-state sibling parc_etat, but it never names the sibling it contrasts with, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The historical framing implies when to use it (trend analysis over time rather than a point-in-time snapshot), and the note that unchanged days produce no point sets expectations. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of parc_etat/parc_journal' guidance or statement of exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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