Busca proyectos publicados en el directorio de humanista.digital.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pais | No | ||
| tipo | No | project_type, texto libre | |
| campo | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| ciudad | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| tecnica | No | ||
| categoria | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search projects' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, whether pagination applies, or any side effects. The description is purely a purpose statement, not a behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently states the tool's core purpose. While it lacks critical details, the dimension of conciseness rewards the absence of unnecessary words, and this description earns its place despite being minimal.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention any of the search criteria, result ordering, pagination, or return value shape. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool confidently without external documentation.
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 11%, and the description adds nothing about any of the 9 parameters. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema, offering no explanation of 'pais', 'tipo', 'campo', or other filters. The agent cannot understand the meaning or expected format of parameters from the description.
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 a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('proyectos publicados en el directorio de humanista.digital'), clearly indicating a search operation for published projects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'obtener_proyecto' and other entity-specific searches by its clear focus on projects.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'buscar_todo' or 'obtener_proyecto'. There are no mentions of filtering, result limits, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.