io.github.billibu-n/mcp-leyes-chile

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cl_articulo

Retrieves the literal text and citation object for a Chilean legal article using its norm ID and article number; an optional body disambiguates compiled codes.

Instructions

Texto literal + objeto de cita. Sin fuente no devuelve texto.

cuerpo desambigua compendios (DFL 1): "Código Civil", "Ley 4.808", etc.

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": {
      "id_norma": "<id_norma>",
      "articulo": "<articulo>"
    },
    "name": "cl_articulo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cuerpo`	No
`articulo`	Yes
`id_norma`	Yes
`vigente_al`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.4Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the return includes literal text and a citation object and that missing source yields no text, but it omits permissions, error behavior, pagination/version behavior, and the meaning of `vigente_al`.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Its terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification that is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has four parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. Given that complexity, the description is incomplete because it explains only one parameter and does not clarify the required norm/article identification or validity-date semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for all four parameters. It explains only `cuerpo` with examples such as "Código Civil" and "Ley 4.808", leaving `id_norma`, `articulo`, and `vigente_al` undefined beyond their schema titles.

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 states that the tool returns literal article text plus a citation object, and the `cuerpo` note clarifies disambiguation of compendia. The resource is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like `cl_citar`, `cl_buscar`, or `cl_documento`.

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?

The only usage-like guidance is the constraint that without a source no text is returned. It does not say when to use this tool versus `cl_citar`, `cl_buscar`, or `cl_documento`, nor does it explain prerequisites for `id_norma`.

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

Deploy Server