Skip to main content
Glama

cattle-market

by ar.com.consignatarias

DT-e (número de tropa) — referencia

sanidad_dte_tropa
Read-onlyIdempotent

Explica el DT-e (Documento de Tránsito electrónico) / número de tropa que ampara el movimiento de hacienda a remate o faena: qué es, qué requisitos hacen falta para emitirlo (RENSPA vigente, clave fiscal ARCA, vacunación al día) y cómo se encadena con los requisitos sanitarios. NO emite ni consulta un DT-e real (SIGSA está tras clave fiscal ARCA); es referencia. Para el detalle de requisitos por movimiento usá sanidad_requisitos_movimiento.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that this tool is purely reference and does not emit or consult real data. It also adds context about prerequisites (RENSPA, clave fiscal ARCA, vaccination) and how it chains with sanitary requirements, without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary clarifications. It could be marginally more concise, but overall it is well-structured and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's role as a reference. It explains what the tool does, what it does not do, and where to find more detail. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not discuss parameters because there are none. For zero-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately fulfills its role.

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?

The description clearly states the tool explains the DT-e (Documento de Tránsito electrónico) or number of tropa, its requirements, and how it links to sanitary requirements. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'sanidad_requisitos_movimiento' by specifying that for detailed movement requirements, that sibling should be used.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when not to use this tool (it does not issue or query a real DT-e) and directs users to an alternative tool for detailed movement requirements. This provides clear guidance on appropriate use cases.

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

All cattle-market toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a specific, well-defined aspect of the cattle market domain. Overlaps are minimal and clearly disambiguated in descriptions (e.g., get_precios_hacienda vs. get_precios_detallados vs. get_indice_novillo). Even similar-sounding tools like calcular_arrendamiento and valuar_arrendamiento_campo have distinct purposes (simple calculation vs. valuation with currency options).

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix Spanish and English verb patterns (e.g., 'get_indice_novillo' vs. 'buscar_consignataria', 'contratar_pro_consignataria' vs. 'list_remates'). While each subgroup (sanidad_*, get_*) maintains internal consistency, the overall naming is not unified. However, names are still descriptive and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a broad domain (prices, health, directories, valuations, alerts) without feeling bloated. Each tool earns its place, providing meaningful functionality. The count is well-scoped for the Argentine cattle market context.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: market data (prices, indices, historical), consignment and slaughterhouse directories, health regulations and movement requirements, valuation tools, alerts, and even a buyer matching service. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a cattle market MCP server.

Resources