presupuestos.red

Preparar edición del presupuesto

preparar_edicion_presupuesto

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calcula cantidades, costos editables y composición de matrices conjuntamente sobre los inputs vigentes, conservando otros overrides. Consulta primero IDs, valores y huella. Devuelve antes/después y abre la confirmación; NO guarda. Ante nombres ambiguos pide al usuario elegir las referencias. Para guardar, el propietario debe pulsar Aplicar cambios en el visor; nunca confirmes por él.

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": {
      "presupuestoId": "<presupuestoId>",
      "version": "<version>",
      "expectedDataFingerprint": "<expectedDataFingerprint>",
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "preparar_edicion_presupuesto"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`version`	Yes	Versión documental consultada.
`operations`	Yes	Cambios conjuntos por IDs consultados. Para filas usa matrixCatalogId, itemIndex original (base cero) y expected completo de la inspección. Las matrices son compartidas, no ocurrencias aisladas. No inventes IDs ni resuelvas nombres ambiguos.
`presupuestoId`	Yes	ID del presupuesto autorizado.
`readSharePath`	No	Enlace vigente que sólo autoriza lectura.
`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.
`expectedDataFingerprint`	Yes	Huella efectiva obtenida al consultar el presupuesto.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`status`	Yes
`context`	No
`message`	No
`preview`	No
`canApply`	No
`nextAction`	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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, closed-world), and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: it preserves untouched overrides ('conservando otros overrides'), returns a before/after diff, opens a confirmation step, and must never be treated as a commit. It also flags human-in-the-loop ownership of the save, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it computes, the consult-first prerequisite, the return shape and non-persistence, ambiguity handling, and the save handoff. The critical constraint ('NO guarda') is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 6-parameter, batch-operation tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the whole workflow from consultation through preview to human confirmation. The remaining gap is failure behavior, such as what a fingerprint or expected-value mismatch produces, which an agent would need before committing a large operation batch.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each field and the strict oneOf operation shapes; the description adds provenance meaning by requiring that IDs, current values and the fingerprint come from a prior consultation. It stops short of saying what happens on a stale or mismatched fingerprint, so it supplements rather than fully explains parameter handling.

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 description states a specific verb set and resource ('Calcula cantidades, costos editables y composición de matrices... sobre los inputs vigentes') and immediately delimits scope with 'Devuelve antes/después y abre la confirmación; NO guarda.' That exclusion lets an agent distinguish this preview tool from the apply path without inspecting any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit prerequisite ('Consulta primero IDs, valores y huella'), an ambiguity policy ('Ante nombres ambiguos pide al usuario elegir las referencias'), and a when-not/alternative path ('Para guardar, el propietario debe pulsar Aplicar cambios en el visor; nunca confirmes por él'). The agent knows both when to call this and what not to do with the result.

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?