get_inpi_rne_recordRetrieve the official current status of a French company from INPI's RNE registry using its SIREN, with personal data masked by default.
Récupère l’état officiel courant d’une entreprise auprès de DATA INPI. Les coordonnées personnelles, adresses de personnes physiques et jours de naissance sont masqués par défaut.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siren | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: personal contact details, natural-person addresses and birth days are masked by default. It still omits auth requirements, read-only status, caching/freshness, and error behavior for a network-backed lookup.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the privacy caveat. No filler, though it is under-specified rather than over-sized.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more: it names the resource and the masking behavior but leaves the return shape, the meaning/format of 'siren', and any freshness or read-only semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The schema documents only 'siren' at 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions the parameter, its expected format, or that it is required. This is a one-parameter tool where the description should compensate for the empty schema but does not.
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?
States a specific verb (Récupère) and resource (l'état officiel courant d'une entreprise / fiche officielle RNE) plus the authoritative source (DATA INPI). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_company_snapshot or resolve_company, which an agent could easily confuse with this record lookup.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite many sibling tools (get_company_snapshot, resolve_company, get_bodacc_history) covering overlapping ground. The agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.