Skip to main content
Glama
Angelthebestone

Normativa Colombia MCP

by Angelthebestone
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Analizar un posible conflicto entre dos normas

analizar_conflicto

Gather evidence of potential conflicts between two Colombian norms by checking validity, hierarchy, and reform notes from the Gestor Normativo.

Instructions

Reúne para dos normas la EVIDENCIA de un posible conflicto: identificación en el Gestor, vigencia según SUIN cuando consta, nivel en la jerarquía y carácter, notas de reforma del texto (de cualquier artículo de la norma) y pasajes que mencionanun tema. NO detecta contradicciones semánticas: el resultado es un conflicto POTENCIAL, no una conclusión jurídica; verifica en los enlaces antes de actuar. Con formato="json" devuelve un objeto con fecha_consulta, alcance, sobre (si se pidió), evidencias (una por norma, con los mismos campos del texto) y avisos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sobreNoTema opcional para buscar artículos de ambas que lo mencionen
formatoNoSalida: "markdown" (texto legible, por defecto) o "json" (un objeto con fecha_consulta, alcance, evidencias y avisos, sin cabecera ni pie)markdown
norma_aYesCita de la primera norma, ej. "Ley 909 de 2004"
norma_bYesCita de la segunda norma

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / formato
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "markdown",
+  "description": "Salida: \"markdown\" (texto legible, por defecto) o \"json\" (un objeto con fecha_consulta, alcance, evidencias y avisos, sin cabecera ni pie)",
+  "enum": [
+    "markdown",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.10.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the output is evidence-gathering only, that no semantic contradiction detection happens, that results are potential not conclusive, and it describes the JSON return shape (fecha_consulta, alcance, sobre, evidencias, avisos). It omits any mention of permissions, limits, or cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and evidence list, then limitations, then output format — a logical order. It is dense and contains a typo ('mencionanun'), and the single long semicolon-chained sentence is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, and it does for the JSON mode (listing the object's fields). The default markdown output is only labeled 'texto legible', leaving its structure underspecified, but overall an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining that 'sobre' drives a passage search across both norms and by detailing what formato="json" returns, which the schema only hints at.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Reúne para dos normas la EVIDENCIA de un posible conflicto', then enumerates exactly which evidence types are gathered (identificación en el Gestor, vigencia SUIN, jerarquía, notas de reforma, pasajes temáticos). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like comparar_articulos or consultar_vigencia.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states a when-not: 'NO detecta contradicciones semánticas' and warns 'el resultado es un conflicto POTENCIAL, no una conclusión jurídica; verifica en los enlaces antes de actuar'. It gives clear context for use, though it never names a specific sibling tool to use instead when a semantic comparison is actually wanted.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools