Acredita un fondeo subiendo el XML de tu CEP: se valida contra Banxico y, si liquido, se acredita tu saldo al instante. Envia la referencia del fondeo y el XML del CEP. No tiene costo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cep_xml | Yes | ||
| referencia | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the validation against Banxico, the conditional nature of the credit, the instant result on success, and that there is no cost. It does not detail failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is clearly communicated.
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 concise and front-loaded: it states the action, the input method, the validation step, the success condition, and cost in three short sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.
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 tool with only two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials needed to invoke it correctly: what to send, what happens, and the success condition. It leaves error-case behavior and explicit sibling differentiation unaddressed, but those are minor gaps for such a simple operation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It maps both required parameters to their real-world objects ('referencia del fondeo' and 'XML del CEP'), which adds some semantic context, but it stops short of explaining formats, constraints, or how to obtain the reference.
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 ('Acredita') and a specific resource ('fondeo'), and explains the mechanism: uploading a CEP XML that is validated against Banxico. The conditional outcome ('si liquido, se acredita tu saldo al instante') provides enough specificity to distinguish it from related 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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a fondeo reference and a CEP XML, and want the balance credited after Banxico validation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like crear_fondeo or crear_fondeo_x402, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Most tools fall into clear families such as validar_*, verificar_* and consultar_*, but there is semantic overlap among consultar_catalogo, catalogo_leyes and catalogo_servicios, and between acreditar_fondeo and verificar_pago since both process CEP XML. The descriptions usually clarify the intent, but an agent could still choose the wrong generic catalog or payment tool.
The dominant pattern is Spanish infinitive_noun, e.g. validar_rfc, verificar_empresa and consultar_saldo, but there are noticeable deviations such as catalogo_leyes, estado_servicio, tipo_cambio and verificacion_completa. The English-style screening_listas and screening_monitorear also break the Spanish verb pattern, making the naming readable but inconsistent.
With 30 tools, the server sits well above the recommended MCP range and will add significant context/selection overhead. The broad multi-domain scope explains some of the size, but several account/meta tools could be consolidated, and the overall surface feels heavier than ideal.
The core workflows are well covered: company/invoice/payment verification, legal search and lookup, fiscal calculations, identity validations, screening and constancy validation are all present. However, there are dead ends: crear_fondeo_x402 requires an out-of-band REST liquidation step, screening_monitorear has no management/removal counterpart, and registrar_obligacion has no list/delete tools.