Indice de legislacion mexicana disponible (Constitucion, codigos y leyes federales, nacionales y de los 32 estados). Filtra por materia (Civil/Penal/Fiscal/Laboral/...), ambito (Federal/Estatal/Nacional), entidad o texto en el nombre. Devuelve el documento_id que necesitas para consultar_ley. Es GRATIS: es el catalogo, no el contenido.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| ambito | No | ||
| entidad | No | ||
| materia | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Es GRATIS'), scope limitation ('es el catalogo, no el contenido') so an agent won't expect full legal text, and the primary return value (document_id). It omits result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but the most important expectation-setting traits are 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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: what the index contains, how to filter it, and what it returns plus cost. Front-loaded with the core purpose and logically ordered. Slightly denser than the tightest possible version due to parenthetical enumerations, but those enumerations add concrete value for an agent.
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?
Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what to expect (document_id), how to invoke filters, and how to chain into consultar_ley, which is the critical integration. Remaining gaps are minor: exact return shape beyond document_id, result caps, and filter-combination semantics. For a catalog-lookup tool this is largely 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 description coverage is 0% and there are no enums, yet the description compensates by mapping all four parameters: materia (Civil/Penal/Fiscal/Laboral/...), ambito (Federal/Estatal/Nacional), entidad, and q ('texto en el nombre'), including example values. It does not specify exact value formatting or how filters combine, but it covers the meaning of every parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Indice de legislacion mexicana disponible' covering Constitution, codes, federal/national laws and all 32 states. It distinguishes itself from sibling consultar_ley by explicitly stating it returns the document_id needed for that tool, and its domain (leyes) separates it from catalogo_servicios and consultar_catalogo.
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?
Provides clear context: the tool is the discovery step that yields 'el document_id que necesitas para consultar_ley', establishing a workflow. The 'Es GRATIS: es el catalogo, no el contenido' clause signals it is the cheap/preliminary lookup versus content retrieval. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives like buscar_ley, but the context is sufficient.
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.