Busca noticias/entradas agregadas en el Observatorio de humanista.digital (proyectos, publicaciones, herramientas, convocatorias, eventos del sector).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pais | No | ||
| campo | No | ||
| desde | No | Fecha ISO mínima de publicación | |
| hasta | No | Fecha ISO máxima de publicación | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| tecnica | No | ||
| tipo_actividad | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 only says 'Busca noticias/entradas agregadas' without explaining the extent of the search, whether it crosses all listed categories, or any constraints like pagination, defaults, or required inputs. It also doesn't clarify the relationship to other search tools.
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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no filler. However, the parenthetical list is somewhat lengthy and could be reduced without losing core meaning.
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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the available filters, pagination behavior, or how it differs from the broader 'buscar_todo' tool. Given the complexity, much more contextual detail is needed.
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 only 22% (2 out of 9 params). The description does not explain the meaning of key parameters like 'pais', 'campo', 'tecnica', 'query', 'limit', or 'offset'. It hints at content types that map to 'tipo_actividad', but this is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Busca' and clearly identifies the resource as 'noticias/entradas agregadas en el Observatorio de humanista.digital', with examples of content types. It is clear in isolation but does not distinguish from sibling tools like buscar_proyectos or buscar_eventos, which may overlap in coverage.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., buscar_proyectos, buscar_eventos, buscar_todo). The description does not state appropriate contexts, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.