Skip to main content
Glama

Revision rapida de un RFC

revision_rapida

Estado de un RFC en el SAT 69-B y el articulo 69, con la version de cada fuente y cuando se espera la siguiente. Con 'desde' (AAAA-MM-DD) incluye lo que cambio despues de esa fecha. Sin constancia: la constancia con folio es verificar_empresa, y si se pide dentro de 24 h para el mismo RFC se cobra solo la diferencia. Consume saldo (servicio ESTADO; tarifa vigente en consultar_precios).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rfc": "<rfc>"
    },
    "name": "revision_rapida"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfcYes
desdeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it consumes balance, is tied to the ESTADO service, and pricing is found in consultar_precios. It also describes the returned source-version and next-update information. It does not cover auth or rate-limit details, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and front-loaded: starts with what is returned, then explains the date filter, alternative tool, pricing behavior, and balance consumption. Every sentence carries operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, it explains the core return content, the optional date filter, the main sibling alternative, and cost implications. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 does well for 'desde', specifying the AAAA-MM-DD format and that it includes changes after that date. The required 'rfc' parameter is named but not explicitly formatted or defined, leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific capability: reviewing an RFC's status in SAT 69-B and article 69, including source versions and next expected update. It also distinguishes itself from verificar_empresa when a constancia with folio is required.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: if a constancia with folio is needed, use verificar_empresa. It also explains the 24-hour pricing difference for the same RFC and how the optional 'desde' parameter changes usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources