Emite una constancia (recibo verificable) de una verificacion que ya hiciste, por su verification_id. Regresa un folio que cualquiera valida gratis con validar_constancia. No tiene costo extra.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verification_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a folio, that the folio is freely verifiable via validar_constancia, and that there is no extra cost, which goes beyond the bare schema. It does not mention idempotency or failure cases, but for a one-parameter issuance tool the core behavior is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two short, information-dense sentences. The action comes first, followed by the precondition, the return value, the validation path, and the cost implication, with no repetition of the tool name or schema details.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, parameter meaning, return value, and cost. It is slightly incomplete around where verification_id comes from and whether multiple receipts can be issued for the same verification, but these are minor gaps.
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 does clarify that verification_id refers to a verification the user already completed, which adds context beyond the raw property name. However, it does not explain where to obtain the ID or any expected format, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Emite una constancia') and clearly scopes the operation to a verification the agent already performed, identified by verification_id. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling validar_constancia by framing the returned folio as what that sibling validates.
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?
It states the precondition clearly: only emit for a verification that has already been done ('de una verificacion que ya hiciste'). It also names validar_constancia as the validation route, giving useful workflow context, though it does not explicitly list which sibling tools are not appropriate.
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.