Skip to main content
Glama
DweskZ

EcuDataMCP

by DweskZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Ver información de un auditor externo

get_auditor_info
Read-only

Retrieve an external auditor's authorization, nationality, and contact details by RUC or cédula to verify credentials or contact them.

Instructions

One external auditor's authorization, nationality and contact details by RUC or cédula.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNotext summary (default) or json structured result.text
identificacionYesThe auditor's RUC or cédula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Added value: +"text summary (default) or json structured result."
    • addedInput schema / properties / identificacion / description
      Added value: +"The auditor's RUC or cédula"
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.8.14
    • removedInput schema / properties / format / title
      Removed value: -"Format"
    • removedInput schema / properties / identificacion / title
      Removed value: -"Identificacion"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"get_auditor_infoArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"get_auditor_infoDictOutput"
  4. First observedv0.8.12

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned content (authorization, nationality, contact info) and that both RUC and cédula are accepted, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or whether the format parameter alters the response.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource and scope before the lookup keys. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and it usefully names the returned fields despite there being no output schema. Minor gap: no note on what happens when the identifier is not found.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the format enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by RUC or cédula' merely restates the identificacion parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (one external auditor) and enumerates the returned fields (authorization, nationality, contact details) plus the lookup keys (RUC or cédula). The singular 'One' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_auditores, though that sibling is never named, keeping it 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative search_auditores. The single-record framing only weakly implies that you come here once you already have an identifier, leaving routing to inference.

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