INSEE commune code shape, value discarded

Agent readability score

Strengths

• Some tools (e.g., 'github-repo-shape', 'figma-url-shape') have clear, specific purposes.
• Consistent parameter naming across tools may aid in uniform API design.

Weaknesses

• Tool names are generic or unclear (e.g., 'fr-insee', 'agent-tool-index') without explicit intent.
• Descriptions are vague or repetitive (e.g., 'value discarded', 'body discarded') without explaining usage scenarios.
• All tools share identical optional parameters, making it impossible to distinguish relevant inputs.
• No error handling or constraints documented for any tool.
• High overlap in functionality (e.g., 'web-fetch' vs. 'fetch-status') creates ambiguity for agents.

• fr-insee — Name and description are identical, providing no actionable context.
• utc-time — Description lacks context for when/why to use this tool.
• validate-json — No error handling or validation logic described.
• normalize-url — Shares identical parameters with 29 other tools, creating ambiguity.
• agent-tool-index — Description is overly complex and lacks clear use cases.

Verdict

The toolset suffers from poor naming conventions, vague descriptions, and parameter uniformity that obscures functionality. Overlapping capabilities and absent error handling make it difficult for an agent to select and use tools effectively, aligning with the 45/100 readability score.

9/13/2026, 6:34:13 AM

Event narrative