Procesa un CEP (comprobante SPEI) y lo concilia contra tus obligaciones registradas. Envia el XML del CEP en 'xml' y, opcional, las referencias a conciliar. Cuesta SPEI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | Yes | ||
| refs | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does reveal that the tool processes and reconciles and that it has a SPEI cost, but it leaves unclear side effects, reversibility, required permissions, and the response shape. That is a meaningful gap for a financial operation, but the description is not silent about behavior.
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 and front-loaded, with no redundant filler. The final 'Cuesta SPEI.' is compact but cryptic, and the overall structure is efficient without being overly sparse.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly with the required xml parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the result, side effects, and cost implications than it currently does.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping 'xml' to the CEP XML and 'refs' to optional references to reconcile. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though the exact format of 'refs' remains vague.
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 names a specific operation: 'Procesa un CEP (comprobante SPEI)' and 'lo concilia contra tus obligaciones registradas'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verification/validation tools, which target different document types or entities.
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 clearly implies the tool is for processing a SPEI CEP and reconciling it with registered obligations, and it gives concrete instructions to pass the XML and optionally refs. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended context is easy to infer.
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.