nota_simple_estadoEstado de un pedido de nota simple registral y URL para verlo o descargar el PDF cuando esté listo. Requiere cuenta (scope notas:read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pedido_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cta | No | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| pedido | Yes | ||
| disclosure | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the request requires a specific OAuth scope (notas:read), and the PDF URL is only provided when the request is ready. This is valuable and does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the operation, the deliverable, the timing condition, and the authentication requirement in a compact and readable way.
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 a simple one-parameter read-only tool, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context. It could add a note about how to obtain pedido_id or what happens when the request is not yet ready, but these are minor gaps rather than critical omissions.
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 does identify pedido_id as the identifier of a nota simple request, but it does not explain where the ID comes from, its format, or how to obtain it. Since there is only one required, self-descriptive parameter, this partial compensation is minimally adequate.
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 the operation: obtaining the status of a nota simple request and the URL to view/download the PDF when ready. It is distinct from siblings like nota_simple_pedir (which creates a request) and notas_simples_listar (which lists requests) because it focuses on a single pedido's estado.
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 gives clear context: it is used to check the state of a nota simple request and obtain its PDF URL once available. It also states the account/scope requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but for a simple status lookup the context is sufficient.
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 are grouped into recognizable clusters (alertas, checkout, favoritos, notas), but several retrieval/report tools overlap: `fetch` and `subasta` both expose an auction record, and `analisis_subasta` and `informe` both provide analysis. The descriptions give enough distinguishing detail, but an agent must read closely to avoid misselection.
Naming mixes Spanish and English, and mixes conventions: `alertas_crear` and `buscar_subastas` are Spanish compound names, `create_checkout`/`cancel_checkout` are English verb_noun, while `fetch`, `search`, `subasta` and `informe` are bare words. There is internal consistency within clusters, but no coherent pattern across the full toolset.
32 tools is a large, heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where consolidation is usually needed. Many tools earn their place given the broad platform, but the multiple search/retrieval variants and five checkout lifecycle tools could be streamlined.
The server covers the core domain thoroughly: auction search/retrieval, viability reports, alerts, favorites, registry notes, market statistics, plans/account, and UCP checkout all have lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit report-purchase history and some payment steps being delegated to a browser, but agents can complete most workflows.