export_documentsGénère un fichier ZIP contenant tous les justificatifs (factures, reçus, devis) de l'utilisateur, organisés par année et type (charges/mobilier/travaux). Filtrage optionnel par année et/ou type. Retourne une URL de téléchargement temporaire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| year | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the output is a ZIP file, organized by year and type, and it returns a temporary download URL. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
The description is two sentences in French, front-loaded with the core action, and includes all essential details (content, organization, filtering, return URL) without redundancy or extraneous information.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema) and the readOnly annotation, the description covers all necessary aspects: it defines the output format, the document scope, the optional filters, and the return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 provides only bare parameter names (type, year) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that these are optional filters and provides example values for type (charges/mobilier/travaux), clarifying the semantics of both parameters.
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?
The description uses 'Génère un fichier ZIP' (generates a ZIP file), a specific verb and resource, and details the content (all supporting documents) and organization (by year and type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_document or delete_document, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description clearly indicates the tool's purpose—exporting all user documents as a ZIP—and notes optional filtering by year/type. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool performs a similar export, the use case is well-defined and the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains two almost identical comparison tools: compare_micro_bic and get_simulation both compute micro-BIC vs réel and recommend the best regime. This creates a direct selection conflict. Other tools are mostly distinct, but this overlap is significant.
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern consistently, with list_properties, create_income, delete_expense, etc. Minor deviations exist such as compare_micro_bic (no standard noun) and the plural/singular mismatch between delete_document and export_documents, but these are easily understood.
With 44 tools, the surface is very large for an MCP server. While the LMNP domain is broad, the number exceeds the typical range and will be hard for agents to navigate efficiently. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., get_simulation absorbs compare_micro_bic).
The set covers CRUD for properties, incomes, expenses, furniture, and works, plus documents and fiscal computations. However, there is no create/update/delete for loans (only compute and get), no delete_property, and no update for property components. These gaps could block common workflows.