Retrieve required lookup codes for Spanish public APIs such as INE, DataComex, AEMET, and BOE. Pass a group to list its entries or omit it to list available groups.
Códigos que una API exige y no se adivinan (Id del INE para tv, países de DataComex, estaciones de AEMET, productos de carburantes, rangos del BOE). Sin grupo, la lista de grupos; con grupo, sus entradas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grupo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the dual-mode behavior (no group returns the group list; with group returns that group's entries), which is real behavioral context. It does not state that this is a static read-only lookup, whether results are cached or exhaustive, or anything about permissions, leaving gaps for an annotation-free tool.
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?
Two dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter behavior following. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical example list is long but earns its place by supplying the missing enum values.
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 single-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both invocation modes and the shape of the return (group list vs. entries). Minor gap: it does not describe what an individual entry contains (code plus label?), which matters since there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains exactly what omitting 'grupo' yields versus supplying it. The parenthetical list (tv, DataComex, AEMET, carburantes, BOE) effectively supplies example group values that the schema lacks. It does not enumerate exact accepted group identifiers, so not a 5.
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 identifies a specific resource (API lookup codes) and grounds it with concrete examples (INE tv id, DataComex countries, AEMET stations, fuel products, BOE ranges), so an agent understands it is a reference/enumeration tool. The verb is nominal/implicit rather than a stated action, and no sibling tool is named as a contrast, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implied by the framing ('codes an API requires and you can't guess'), which tells the agent to reach for this before calling code-dependent tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (ckan_buscar, boe_sumario, tabla_pcaxis), and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.