Read the Official Gazette of Kantrom (BOE): the latest provisions, or one by reference (e.g. BOE-XKT-2026-66).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "consultar_boe"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it establishes read-only semantics ('Read') and the two access patterns. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what a failed lookup returns, so a meaningful gap remains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, the two modes second, and an inline example — nothing extraneous.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, both modes, and the reference format adequately. Only the shape of the returned provisions and error behavior on a bad reference are left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is entirely undocumented structurally, but the description compensates by defining what 'ref' means and giving a concrete format example (BOE-XKT-2026-66), plus the semantic effect of omitting it. It stops short of saying whether matching is exact or partial.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Read the Official Gazette of Kantrom (BOE)' — and names both access modes (latest provisions vs. a specific reference). None of the siblings (catalogo, empadronarse, pedir_sello, que_es_kantrom, verificar_sello) touch the gazette, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable.
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 makes the two invocation modes explicit: omit the reference to get the latest provisions, supply one to fetch a specific item. It gives no when-not guidance or named alternatives, but for a singular read tool none are needed.
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.