list_property_componentsListe les composants d'amortissement par ventilation d'un bien immobilier (gros œuvre, toiture, électricité, etc.). Retourne chaque composant avec son pourcentage, la base de calcul, la durée et l'amortissement annuel. La somme des pourcentages doit être 100 %.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes |
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the returned fields (percentage, base, duration, annual depreciation) and the constraint that percentages sum to 100%. 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output details. No redundant content exists; every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and a key business rule. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid property_id or empty lists), but overall it is sufficiently complete for this complexity.
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 has 0% coverage, and the description never mentions the property_id parameter. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify its role or format, leaving a gap for a single-parameter tool.
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 clearly states it lists depreciation components for a property, using the specific verb 'Liste' and resource 'composants d'amortissement', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_properties and compute_depreciation.
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 usage is implied—this is for retrieving depreciation components—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The read-only nature is apparent from annotations, not the description.
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.