Consulta un catalogo o dato oficial mexicano: banco SPEI por clave, catalogo SAT (tipo regimen/uso_cfdi/forma_pago) o telefono/LADA. Cuesta DATO (ver consultar_precios).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | Yes | ||
| clave | No | ||
| numero | No | ||
| subtipo | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly surfaces that the operation costs DATO and points to consultar_precios, but it does not detail read-only implications, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on invalid keys. The cost disclosure is useful, yet other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the action and resource, followed by an efficient cost note. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a useful orientation but not a complete invocation guide. It lacks an explicit enumeration of valid 'tipo' values, the role of 'subtipo' is only implied, and the return format is not addressed. These are meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and calling the tool.
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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds value by linking 'clave' to SPEI banks, 'numero' to phone/LADA, and 'subtipo' possibilities via SAT catalog examples (regimen/uso_cfdi/forma_pago). However, it never explicitly maps 'tipo' to allowed values, leaving some inference required.
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 the verb 'Consulta' with a specific resource: 'un catalogo o dato oficial mexicano', and enumerates concrete use cases (SPEI bank via clave, SAT catalogs for regimen/uso_cfdi/forma_pago, and phone/LADA). This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like validar_curp or validar_clabe, which target single verification purposes.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: any lookup of a Mexican official catalog or data point. It also routes to consultar_precios for cost details, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for overlapping cases, stopping short of a full usage-exclusion list.
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.