Próceres · escritos judiciales de España: papeleta, demanda y recursos

Identificación del conductor de un vehículo (tráfico)

identificacion_conductor

Read-only

Compone el escrito con el que se identifica al conductor de un vehículo cuando la denuncia llega al titular y no lo conducía él, para no pagar la sanción ni perder puntos. No pide ni devuelve datos personales: el nombre, el DNI, el domicilio y el contacto NO están entre sus campos (el escrito los deja como huecos entre corchetes para que los rellene quien lo presenta). No le pidas esos datos y no los escribas en la llamada.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organo": "<organo>"
    },
    "name": "identificacion_conductor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hechos`	No	Lo que cuenta el ciudadano, con sus palabras.
`organo`	Yes	Quién sanciona o instruye.
`clausulas`	No	Las cláusulas accesorias (otrosí) que se piden de más, por su clave, como en la pantalla de la multa. En tráfico cabe la reserva de lo que se reclamará después; una que la ley de tráfico excluya (la suspensión automática, el blindaje documental) se rechaza con el motivo que da el art. 96.3.
`expediente`	No	Número de expediente o de boletín de denuncia, si consta.
`fechaNotificacion`	No	Fecha de la notificación (AAAA-MM-DD).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / clausulas

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Las cláusulas accesorias (otrosí) que se piden de más, por su clave, como en la pantalla de la multa. En tráfico cabe la reserva de lo que se reclamará después; una que la ley de tráfico excluya (la suspensión automática, el blindaje documental) se rechaza con el motivo que da el art. 96.3.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "suspension",
+      "blindaje_documental",
+      "certificado_silencio",
+      "reserva_responsabilidad"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotations, it explains the output contract: the document contains bracketed gaps for name/DNI/address/contact and the tool accepts and returns no PII. That's substantial added value, though I'd rate it a 4 (strong) rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the critical PII constraint. The no-personal-data warning is repeated twice ('No pide ni devuelve…' and 'No le pidas esos datos…'), which adds emphasis but some redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool, it explains the nature of the produced document and its limitations. The clausulas rejection behavior is left mostly to the schema text, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by warning that PII fields are deliberately absent and explaining the output's placeholders. Enum values for clausulas are handled entirely by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Compone el escrito') plus resource (identificación del conductor) plus the exact triggering scenario (denuncia llega al titular y no lo conducía él) and goal (no pagar la sanción ni perder puntos). It does not name sibling tools, so it falls short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear triggering scenario tells the agent when to use it, plus a strong usage directive not to request or write personal data. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among its many siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Próceres · escritos judiciales de España: papeleta, demanda y recursos tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?