Transaccion completa (COMBO): empresa por RFC + factura (XML CFDI) + pago (XML CEP) en una sola operacion, a precio combinado. Cuesta COMBO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rfc | Yes | ||
| refs | No | ||
| cep_xml | Yes | ||
| cfdi_xml | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a combined transactional operation with a bundled/combo price, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, output behavior, failure modes, or any prerequisites beyond the parameters.
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 short, front-loaded, and mostly efficient. The main redundancy is that 'a precio combinado' and 'Cuesta COMBO' both communicate cost information, but the overall length is still appropriate.
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?
This is a combined 4-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description gives the inputs and the bundling concept but omits what the agent should expect in the result, how XML contents are used, and any additional context needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 usefully maps rfc to 'empresa', cfdi_xml to 'factura (XML CFDI)', and cep_xml to 'pago (XML CEP)', which covers the required parameters. However, the optional 'refs' parameter is not explained at all.
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 a combined operation: company verification by RFC plus invoice (CFDI XML) plus payment (CEP XML) in a single call. It also distinguishes itself from the individual sibling tools like verificar_empresa, verificar_factura, and verificar_pago by explicitly labeling itself a COMBO.
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 conveys that this tool should be used when all three verifications are needed together, and that it is priced as a bundle. It does not explicitly name the individual alternatives, but the sibling list and the 'en una sola operacion' wording make the intended use case clear.
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.