El SLA de soporte técnico: dónde está y cómo usarlo. El documento es la fuente única de las promesas de servicio; no resumas de memoria ni prometas por encima de él.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the document being the authoritative source, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or potential caveats. The bar is lower due to annotations, and the description meets it without contradiction.
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 short, with two sentences that convey purpose and usage guidance efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it could be slightly more structured with a clear verb.
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 tool has no parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and constraints. The emphasis on the document being the single source is valuable. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state what the response will contain, but the output schema likely covers that.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description fulfills this adequately.
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 identifies the subject as the technical support SLA and states its purpose ('dónde está y cómo usarlo'), indicating the tool provides information about the SLA location and usage. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it's clear but doesn't fully match the highest bar.
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 gives explicit guidance: the document is the single source of service promises, and the agent should not summarize from memory or promise beyond it. This tells the agent when to rely on this tool and what to avoid, though it doesn't reference sibling tools.
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.
Cada herramienta tiene un propósito claramente diferenciado: estado del catálogo, búsqueda, comparación, ficha, cotización, pedido, infraestructura, políticas y SLA. Aunque varias empiezan por get_, sus dominios no se solapan y las descripciones refuerzan cuándo usar cada una.
La mayoría sigue el patrón verbo_sustantivo en snake_case (search_products, compare_products, create_draft_order, get_product). Se desvían quote, que es solo un verbo, y catalog_status, que parece un sintagma nominal en lugar de get_catalog_status; son desviaciones menores y no generan confusión.
Nueve herramientas es un tamaño adecuado para un catálogo de hosting: cubren consulta, comparación, cotización y pedido sin llegar a ser un servidor de administración. Cada herramienta tiene un rol claro y ninguna sobra.
El flujo principal está completo: conocer la frescura del catálogo, buscar, comparar, obtener fichas, cotizar y crear un pedido en borrador, además de las consultas legales, de SLA e infraestructura. No se echan en falta operaciones de escritura porque el servidor es explícitamente de consulta y no cobra ni contrata.