Relaciona una necesidad con servicios públicos de Desafío. La salida es orientativa, explica el encaje y no promete resultados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | ||
| language | No | es-ES | |
| company_type | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is indicative, explains fit, and does not promise results, which is valuable and non-obvious. It does not go into details about side effects or internal behavior, but for a recommendation tool these added caveats are meaningful.
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 a single dense sentence that communicates both the core action and the important caveat about output reliability. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It lacks details about the output structure, optional parameters, or how the recommendation should be presented to users. The available information covers only the basic purpose and a caveat about results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only maps to the 'need' parameter through the phrase 'relaciona una necesidad', but provides no semantics for 'language' or 'company_type'. The optional parameters remain unexplained in both the schema and description.
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 explains the tool's function: relating a need to Desafío's public services. It also differentiates itself from siblings like get_service and search by framing the output as an advisory match rather than a direct lookup or raw search. The 'need' concept is specific enough to guide an agent.
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 implies usage when an agent has a stated need and wants to identify matching services, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search or get_service. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: company profile, contact info, individual service, case study listing, service recommendation, and general search. The descriptions include explicit guidance on when to use search vs. recommend_service, so there is no real ambiguity.
All tool names follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_company, get_contact, get_service, list_case_studies, recommend_service. The only outlier is 'search', but as a single verb it remains consistent with the imperative verb style.
Six tools is well-scoped for a company information service. Each tool has a clear purpose and none are redundant; the set covers information retrieval, listing, and recommendation without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the core public-information needs: company identity, contact, services, case studies, and a general search. A minor gap is the lack of a direct list_services tool, but search and recommend_service can find services effectively.