Busca normas en el Diario Oficial El Peruano.
Args:
consulta: Texto a buscar, entre 2 y 100 caracteres.
desde: Fecha inicial YYYY-MM-DD (opcional).
hasta: Fecha final YYYY-MM-DD (opcional).
start: Desplazamiento de resultados; 0 es la primera página.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| desde | No | ||
| hasta | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| consulta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the date-range filter and offset-based pagination ('0 es la primera página'), but says nothing about result volume per page, ordering, permissions, or rate limits.
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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the parameter list is compact with no filler. Structure is appropriate for a search tool, though the Args block is the only place meaning lives.
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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, key calling details are missing: page size, maximum results, ordering, and the shape of returned norms. What is present (query bounds, date filter, offset) is accurate but not sufficient on its own.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all four parameters with constraints and formats (2–100 characters, YYYY-MM-DD, start as result offset). Only the exact semantics of 'start' (items vs pages) remains slightly ambiguous.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: searching ('Busca') norms in the Diario Oficial El Peruano. This clearly separates it from norma_detalle (detail lookup) and from the contrataciones siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'Busca' versus the sibling 'norma_detalle'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent can infer search-vs-detail, but nothing in the text confirms it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.