LeyChile MCP

leychile_resolver_codigo

Read-onlyIdempotent

Obtain the exact idNorma and metadata of any Chilean legal code by providing its name, enabling precise article retrieval.

Instructions

Resuelve un código chileno por su nombre y devuelve sus metadatos e idNorma.

Útil para obtener el idNorma exacto del Código Civil, Penal, Procesal Penal, de Procedimiento Civil, del Trabajo, Tributario, etc., antes de pedir artículos.

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_resolver_codigo"
  }
}

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that the tool returns metadata and idNorma, which are not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly defines the action and output, and the second provides examples and use-case context. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, inputs, and output (metadata and idNorma). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and a simple parameter set, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for 'nombre' and an enum for 'response_format'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it resolves a Chilean code by name and returns metadata and idNorma. It provides specific examples (Código Civil, Penal, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'leychile_resolver_ley_por_nombre' by focusing on codes.

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?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Útil para obtener el idNorma exacto ... antes de pedir artículos.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the tool name and sibling list imply it's for codes rather than laws.

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