Skip to main content
Glama
rundata-re

rundata · La Réunion 974 en direct

by rundata-re
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Sécheresse : restrictions d'eau à La Réunion

restrictions_eau
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check current drought water-use restrictions in Réunion by commune or place and see which uses are allowed or prohibited for households, businesses, municipalities, and farms.

Instructions

Restrictions d'eau en cas de sécheresse à La Réunion (974), d'après l'arrêté préfectoral en vigueur (VigiEau) : niveau par commune (vigilance, alerte, alerte renforcée, crise) pour l'eau du robinet, les rivières et sources, les nappes, et ce qui est interdit (arrosage, lavage de voiture, piscine…) pour un particulier, une entreprise, une collectivité ou une exploitation agricole. Pour : « restrictions d'eau à Saint-Joseph ? », « j'ai le droit d'arroser mon jardin au Port ? », « je peux remplir ma piscine ? ». Sans lieu : toute l'île. / Drought water-use restrictions in Réunion Island, per commune.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lieuNoLieu à La Réunion, en texte libre : commune (« Saint-Paul »), plage (« plage de l'Hermitage », « Boucan Canot »), quartier, cirque (« Cilaos », « Mafate »), sommet (« Maïdo », « volcan »), ou coordonnées « -21.05, 55.22 ». Vide = tour de l'île. / Place in Réunion, free text or 'lat, lon'; empty = whole island.
profilNoPour qui (« exploitation » = agriculteur) ; par défaut un particulier. / Who asks; default a private person.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.190.11
    • changedInput schema / properties / profil / description
      Previous value: -"Pour qui (« exploitation » = agriculteur) ; par défaut un particulier. / Who asks; default a private person."New value: +"Pour qui (« exploitation » = agriculteur) ; par défaut un particulier. / Who asks; default a private person."
  2. Addedv0.128.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (data comes from the current prefectoral decree via VigiEau, coverage spans tap water, rivers, springs and aquifers), but says nothing about update frequency or how stale the 'en vigueur' data can be.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then use cases, then the no-location default — the ordering is agent-friendly. The mirrored French/English sentence is slightly redundant but each clause still carries information.

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?

For a read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about the returned content (level categories, forbidden practices by profile) to call it correctly. Only the shape/format of the response is left implicit.

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% and both parameters are richly documented there, including free-text formats, coordinates and enum meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the profile list and the per-commune granularity but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a concrete resource (drought water-use restriction levels per commune), the authoritative source (arrêté préfectoral en vigueur / VigiEau), and exactly what it returns (level per commune, per water source type, and prohibited uses per profile). This clearly separates it from siblings like coupures_eau (outages), qualite_eau (quality) and vigilance_meteo (weather alerts) without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives three realistic user-question phrasings that select this tool and states the default behavior when no location is supplied ('Sans lieu : toute l'île'). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or an explicit exclusion case, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools