LeyChile MCP

leychile_mapa_procesal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Maps a substantive legal right to its appropriate procedural path and verifies the current validity of cited procedural norms to prevent reliance on modified or repealed procedures.

Instructions

Conecta un derecho sustantivo con su vía procesal idónea (reenvío sustantivo↔adjetivo).

Verifica en vivo la vigencia de las normas procesales citadas (para no plantear estrategias sobre un procedimiento modificado o derogado).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds the behavioral trait of live validity checking, which is helpful but does not elaborate on side effects or output format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Concise and structured effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the schema coverage is 0% and there are three effective parameters (through nested object), the description fails to provide necessary parameter guidance. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter semantics are missing, reducing completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not explain the parameters; the input schema has 0% description coverage according to context, so the description should compensate. It mentions connecting a substantive right but gives no details on the 'institucion' parameter or optional fields.

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?

The description clearly states the tool connects a substantive right with its appropriate procedural route, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on mapping rather than searching norms.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The usage is implied by the purpose, but the lack of exclusions or alternative references leaves the agent to infer context.

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