notas_recientesLas notas más nuevas de INPUT, de todo el sitio o de una sección.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "notas_recientes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eje | No | Sección opcional. | |
| limite | No | Cantidad máxima de resultados (por defecto 8). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('más nuevas') but says nothing about permissions, pagination, return shape, or whether results are truncated by default beyond what the schema states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it leaves little room for the behavioral context an unannotated tool needs.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but omits return-value expectations and any safety or permission notes that annotations would normally supply.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default limit of 8 and the section enum. The description only restates that a section may be selected, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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?
Names the resource (notas) and a clear recency qualifier ('más nuevas'), plus scope (whole site or a section). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling buscar_notas, so an agent must infer that this is a recency feed rather than a query tool.
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?
Implies when to use it (fetching the newest notes) and explains the scope choice, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the alternative buscar_notas for filtered lookups.
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.