Busca servicios, casos, preguntas frecuentes e información pública aprobada de Desafío Comunicación. Úsala cuando la necesidad todavía no corresponde a un identificador conocido.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | all | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Necesidad o tema que se quiere localizar | |
| language | No | es-ES |
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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but the verb 'Busca' and the phrase 'información pública aprobada' reasonably imply a read-only operation over public data. However, it does not disclose result behavior, pagination, or any special handling of the type parameter, leaving a moderate transparency gap.
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 with no repetition or filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The description provides a clear purpose and a key usage condition, but it lacks parameter-level guidance and return-value information, especially given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It is adequate for a simple search call but leaves the agent to infer important details such as how type narrowing works and what the response contains.
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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters like type and limit, but it does not. The description's list of resource types loosely maps to the type enum, but it offers no guidance on values, defaults, or how query, limit, and language interact.
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 uses a specific verb ('Busca') and names the resources searched: services, cases, FAQs, and approved public information. It further distinguishes the tool by stating it is for when the user does not yet have a known identifier, which separates it from the get_* sibling tools.
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 explicitly says to use this tool when the need does not map to a known identifier, which is clear usage guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives or specify when not to use it, but the identifier condition gives an agent enough context to choose between search and get_* 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.
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.