Busqueda de texto completo en la legislacion mexicana. Devuelve articulos con extracto, cita y fuente. Filtra por materia, ambito, entidad o un documento_id. Cuesta LEGAL cuando hay resultados; una busqueda sin coincidencias no cobra. Trae deslinde.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| ambito | No | ||
| limite | No | ||
| entidad | No | ||
| materia | No | ||
| documento | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses cost behavior ('Cuesta LEGAL cuando hay resultados; una busqueda sin coincidencias no cobra'), the presence of a disclaimer, and the return shape. It omits details like authentication, rate limits, and pagination, but gives meaningful behavioral context.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then the return shape, filters, cost, and disclaimer. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler or repetition.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, result contents, filter dimensions, cost, and no-result behavior. It is largely complete, but missing semantics for limite and the documento vs documento_id naming mismatch keep it from being fully complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping the filter parameters materia, ambito, entidad, and documento/documento_id, and implies q is the full-text search term. However, it does not explain limite, and it refers to 'documento_id' while the schema parameter is named 'documento', leaving ambiguity.
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 clearly identifies a full-text search operation over Mexican legislation and states what is returned: articles with excerpt, citation, and source. It is recognizable against sibling tools like catalogo_leyes and consultar_ley, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 conveys a clear use context: full-text search of legislation, with optional filters and a cost only when results are returned. It does not state explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the context is strong enough to guide invocation.
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.