Cinve

Listar proveedores

list_providers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists cinema providers and implemented coverage in Cinve, helping you identify supported chains and features; it does not perform live availability checks.

Instructions

Lista proveedores y cobertura implementada. Este catálogo de capacidades no realiza una comprobación de disponibilidad en vivo.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_providers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes
`providers`	Yes
`live_health_check`	Yes
`capability_audit_date`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuinely new behavior: the result is a static capability catalog, not a live availability probe, which tells the agent how much to trust the output. It stops short of describing freshness or refresh semantics.

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 short sentences, no redundancy, with the resource statement front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot express: that the catalog is static rather than live. Only the meaning of "proveedor" and the scope of "cobertura implementada" remain under-explained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista proveedores") and adds that the listing covers "cobertura implementada", which distinguishes it from the geographic/catalog siblings like list_cinemas or list_movies. What a "provider" is in this domain remains implicit, so it stops short of a fully self-explanatory purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the closing sentence ("no realiza una comprobación de disponibilidad en vivo") functions as an implicit when-not-to-use rule: don't call this to check live availability. That is useful but leaves the agent to infer the positive use case.

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

Deploy Server