Vigila un nombre: recibiras un webhook (MONITOREO_SCREEN, firmado) cuando aparezca una coincidencia NUEVA en sanciones, PEP o listas nacionales. Envia 'name'; opcional 'country' y 'tax_id'. Registra tu endpoint de webhook aparte. El alta no tiene costo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tax_id | No | ||
| country | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key asynchronous behavior: results are delivered via a signed webhook only when a NEW match appears, not synchronously. It also notes that webhook registration is separate and that enrollment is free. It does not detail the immediate API response or webhook payload structure, but core behavioral expectations are set.
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 states the core behavior; the following sentences cover required inputs, webhook registration, and cost. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundant 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain what the API call returns (e.g., immediate ack status, webhook ID), how to register the webhook endpoint, the shape of the signed webhook payload, or whether matches are one-time events or repeated. The tool's async nature is clear, but the operational workflow is under-specified.
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 names the parameters ('name', optional 'country' and 'tax_id') but only restates their optionality, which is already visible in the schema defaults. It does not explain what 'tax_id' or 'country' do to the monitoring logic, nor what formats are expected.
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 ('Vigila') and resource ('un nombre'), and clearly states the tool's core function: sending a signed webhook when a new match appears in sanctions, PEP, or national lists. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling screening_listas, which likely performs one-time lookups.
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?
Clear context is provided: this tool is for ongoing monitoring rather than one-off screening, with webhook delivery of new matches. Prerequisites like registering the webhook endpoint are mentioned. It does not explicitly rule out when to use a sibling tool like screening_listas, but the monitoring posture is clear enough.
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.