Verifica una persona moral o fisica por RFC: SAT 69-B con historial, articulo 69 (firmes, no localizados, CSD sin efectos), contratacion publica y sancionados. Cuesta COMPANY. El resultado reproduce fuentes oficiales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rfc | Yes | ||
| sancionados | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool costs COMPANY and that results reproduce official sources, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, expected output format, or any side effects, leaving a gap for a no-annotation tool.
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 well-structured: the first sentence front-loads the core scope and data sources, the second states cost and result fidelity. Every clause adds meaningful information, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
The description gives a solid high-level overview, but is incomplete for correct invocation: no explanation of the 'sancionados' parameter, no RFC format guidance, and no output schema or return value description. Given no annotations and no output schema, more detail is warranted.
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 clearly references the 'rfc' parameter, but does not explain the 'sancionados' boolean at all, leaving its meaning and effect ambiguous. This is a significant gap for the agent trying to set parameters correctly.
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 ('Verifica') and a clear resource ('persona moral o fisica por RFC'), followed by a detailed list of what is checked (SAT 69-B, articulo 69, contratacion publica, sancionados). This distinguishes it well from siblings like validar_rfc (simple validation) and screening_listas (focused list screening).
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: to verify a legal or physical person by RFC across multiple official data sources. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the coverage of distinct data categories gives the agent strong situational grounding.
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.