Skip to main content
Glama

el-buen-agente-mcp

by io.github.apasztetnik

§8: Generar el contrato del agente

generar_contrato

Genera el contrato formal del agente (patrón contractor de §8) a partir de los campos provistos. Los campos faltantes quedan marcados como [PENDIENTE] para completar.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
costeNoModelo + estimado de tokens/mes + tope.
puedeNoAcciones autónomas dentro de límites.
inputsNoQué consume.
nombreYesNombre del agente.
outputNoSchema exacto + formato legible para humano.
languageNoIdioma de la respuesta (default "es"). / Response language: pass "en" for English output.
no_puedeNoAcciones que requieren aprobación humana / fuera de alcance.
problemaNoQué resuelve (1 frase) + qué deliberadamente NO toca.
autonomiaNocopiloto | supervisado | autónomo con guardrails (+ plan de progresión).
evaluacionNoMétricas de éxito (verde/amarillo/rojo) + cadencia de review.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only discloses that missing fields are marked as pending, but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits beyond the bare minimum.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description is efficiently structured for quick reading.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the generation process, output format, prerequisites, or how to handle optional fields. This leaves agents without sufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that the fields are 'provistos' (provided), which does not enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The title and description clearly state the tool generates a formal contract for an agent using provided fields, and specifically marks missing fields as [PENDIENTE]. This distinguishes it from siblings, none of which mention contract generation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when generating a contract, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The context is implied but not stated.

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

All el-buen-agente-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes, but some overlap exists between auditing and reviewing tools (e.g., auditar_contexto vs. revisar_rol_y_frontera). The meta-tool recomendar_flujo might cause initial confusion but descriptions clarify its role.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Spanish (e.g., aplicar_challenger, auditar_contexto). The naming is uniform and predictable across all 18 tools.

Tool Count5/5

18 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of comprehensive agent governance. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the agent lifecycle without being overwhelming.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from evaluation, design, auditing, contract generation, to final construction. No obvious gaps; the set is self-contained for agent governance.

Resources