Busca expedientes por texto. Devuelve resúmenes {id, title, status, folderId, updatedAt}.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "expedients_search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ({id, title, status, folderId, updatedAt}), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about matching semantics (substring, fuzzy, case sensitivity), result limits, pagination, or ordering.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Appropriate size for a one-parameter tool, though the return-shape shorthand is a bit dense.
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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, which is a real contribution. It remains incomplete on the things an agent needs to call it well: what text is matched against, how many results come back, and when to prefer expedients_list instead.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "Por texto" adds a small amount of meaning to the bare `query` string (it is a text search input, minLength 1), but gives no guidance on syntax, field coverage, or whether partial words match.
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?
"Busca expedientes por texto" names a specific verb (busca) and resource (expedientes) plus the retrieval mode (text query), which is enough to separate it from expedients_get or expedients_list. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for non-text listing, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase "por texto" implies usage when you have a search string rather than an id or a list operation, so usage is inferable. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules, no mention of how it differs from expedients_list or expedients_get, and no prerequisites stated.
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.