Cuotas IMSS + Infonavit sobre el salario base de cotizacion (SBC) diario. Cuesta NOMINA. Riesgos de Trabajo solo si pasas prima_riesgo (la que el IMSS asigno a la empresa). Declara version y deslinde; no calcula fuera de la vigencia cargada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias | No | ||
| sbc_diario | Yes | ||
| prima_riesgo | No | ||
| fecha_calculo | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes work-risk only conditionally, that the tool declares version and disclaimer, and that it refuses or does not calculate outside the loaded validity period. This is meaningful behavioral context, though rate limits, authentication, and exact response shape are not covered.
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 short and front-loads the main purpose. Each sentence adds information about scope, cost, conditionality, or limitations, but the fragment 'Cuesta NOMINA' is ambiguous and slightly reduces clarity.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It provides the essential calculation purpose and limitations, but an agent cannot determine what happens when fecha_calculo falls outside the loaded validity period, what the response structure looks like, or what error behavior to expect.
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 explains the key parameter sbc_diario and explicitly ties prima_riesgo to the work-risk calculation. However, dias and fecha_calculo are not described beyond the indirect reference to vigencia cargada, leaving their exact meaning and formatting to inference.
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 states that the tool calculates IMSS and Infonavit contributions based on the daily SBC. It is distinct from nearby siblings like calcular_isr and calcular_laboral by naming the exact contribution types and the core input.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for IMSS/Infonavit quotas over SBC, with work-risk contributions only when prima_riesgo is provided. It also states a hard limitation, 'no calcula fuera de la vigencia cargada', which helps the agent decide when this tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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.