Próximos vencimientos (expedientes ordenados por dueDate).
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_due_dates"
}
}| 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the sort order; it says nothing about what window counts as 'upcoming', whether results are filtered by ownership, pagination behavior, or the response shape.
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 single parenthetical sentence is compact and front-loads the core concept, so there is no wasted wording. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, though the structure itself is fine.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, an agent can still guess how to call it. Missing are the definition of 'upcoming', paging semantics, and any routing against the closely named sibling, which matters given a 32-tool surface.
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?
There are two parameters (limit, offset) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions neither. The mention of ordering is the only hint that this is a paginated list, but nothing explains the bounds or default paging behavior, so the coverage gap is not compensated.
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 the resource ('próximos vencimientos' over expedientes ordered by dueDate), so an agent knows roughly what comes back. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from the near-identical sibling 'expedients_upcoming', leaving the boundary between the two undefined.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given at all. With siblings like 'expedients_upcoming', 'expedients_list' and 'expedients_search' present, the description never says which situation selects this tool over those.
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.