Próximas actuaciones (expedientes ordenados por nextActionDate). Útil para "¿qué tengo pendiente?".
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": "expedients_upcoming"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the sort order. It never defines what 'próximas' means (a time window? all future dates? includes overdue?), gives no default or maximum page size behavior, and says nothing about read-only nature or permissions.
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 compact sentences with the resource and sort order front-loaded and an immediate use-case hook; nothing is padded. The parenthetical about nextActionDate is slightly terse, but the entry is appropriately sized for its content.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the upcoming window, paging defaults, and return shape. It covers only the sort key and a use-case slogan, which is not enough for an agent to call this confidently without inspecting the schema.
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% for the two pagination parameters, so the description is the only place meaning could be added — yet it never mentions 'limit' or 'offset'. Defaults, the 100 cap on limit, and offset paging semantics are all left undocumented.
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 names a specific resource and qualifier in 'Próximas actuaciones' plus the ordering key 'nextActionDate', so an agent knows this returns expedients with upcoming actions sorted by next action date. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'expedients_upcoming_due_dates', leaving that comparison to inference.
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 quoted use case '¿qué tengo pendiente?' gives an implied trigger for calling the tool, which is more than nothing. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the due-dates sibling, and no statement of prerequisites, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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.