Resolves exact Table 1/2 ampacity references from a dataset query and returns a portable base_p3 value when available.
Resuelve Tabla 1/2 exacta y devuelve base_p3 portable si existe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| consulta | Yes | ||
| dataset_id | Yes | ||
| permitir_dataset_secundario | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers essentially nothing. It does not state whether this is a pure lookup or a mutation, whether dataset_id must already exist, what error occurs when no exact match exists ('si existe' implies possible absence but no fallback behavior), or what the return looks like. For a resolver with a nested consulta object and a secondary-dataset permission flag, this is critically thin.
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?
A single short sentence, so it is concise in raw length, but conciseness must be traded against adequacy. The one sentence is front-loaded with an unexplained proper noun ('Tabla 1/2') rather than a purpose, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, a nested consulta object, and two required inputs. The description addresses none of the complexity: it does not say what 'base_p3 portable' is, when 'exact' fails, or how the secondary-dataset flag changes behavior. For an agent to call this correctly, nearly everything is missing.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description names no parameters. Three parameters (dataset_id, consulta, permitir_dataset_secundario) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and the nested 'consulta' object is opaque. With 0% coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.
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 states a verb ('Resuelve') and a resource ('Tabla 1/2'), but 'Tabla 1/2 exacta' and 'base_p3 portable' are undefined jargon with no frame of reference. An agent cannot distinguish this from the 90+ siblings (resolver_factor_normativo_ampacidad, resolver_factor_agrupamiento_ampacidad) because the object of resolution is opaque.
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?
No when-to-use, no prerequisites, no alternatives. The sibling list contains resolver_factor_normativo_ampacidad and resolver_factor_agrupamiento_ampacidad, but the description does not route between them or explain what condition triggers this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.