presupuestos.red

Aplicar edición confirmada

aplicar_edicion_presupuesto

Destructive

Sólo el botón de confirmación del visor: aplica la propuesta exacta firmada, revalida propietario, scope, versión y estado y relee el resultado. No reintentar una escritura si se perdió la respuesta; consultar el estado real.

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": {
      "proposal": "<proposal>"
    },
    "name": "aplicar_edicion_presupuesto"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proposal`	Yes	Comprobante de la propuesta visible, disponible sólo en metadata privada del visor.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation_id this server returned earlier in this conversation, unchanged, including after later user messages. Omit it if you have none. Recorded for the server developer's analytics.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`status`	Yes
`context`	No
`message`	No
`operations`	No
`recoverable`	No
`_mcp_instructions`	No	Server-issued metadata for this conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description supplies the missing context for both, explaining that owner, scope, version and state are revalidated and that a lost response must not be retried. It also notes the result is re-read, which is the operationally important behavior an agent cannot infer from the hints alone.

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, front-loaded with the scoping constraint, then the validation and retry-hazard note. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation the description covers preconditions, revalidation behavior, and the failure mode, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only gap is the unmentioned conversation_id parameter and the unnamed tool to consult for real state.

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% and the schema already defines 'proposal' as a visible receipt from viewer private metadata, so 'propuesta exacta firmada' adds little new meaning. The 'conversation_id' parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, leaving the schema to carry it entirely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('aplica la propuesta exacta firmada') and frames the tool as the viewer's confirmation action, which cleanly separates it from the sibling preparar_edicion_presupuesto that prepares rather than applies. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Opening clause 'Sólo el botón de confirmación del visor' scopes usage to the confirmed-proposal path, and the closing sentence gives explicit when-not guidance ('No reintentar una escritura si se perdió la respuesta'). The redirect to 'consultar el estado real' is directionally clear but does not name the specific sibling to call.

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

All presupuestos.red 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?