Skip to main content
Glama
io.github.billibu-n/mcp-leyes-chile

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

by billibu-n

cl_buscar

Search Chilean legislation articles by text and retrieve law identifiers, article references, and excerpts. Filter results by limit and current status.

Instructions

Busca articulos por texto. Devuelve idNorma, norma, articulo y fragmento.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "cl_buscar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
limiteNo
solo_vigentesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields, which is valuable, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, whether results are ranked, or the effect of the default solo_vigentes=true filter, which silently narrows results to currently in-force articles.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a search tool with a behavior-altering default filter.

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 description substitutes for the missing output schema by listing returned fields, which helps. But for a tool with a silent default scope filter and zero parameter coverage, it omits what an agent most needs to know: how results are limited and what gets excluded.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters and does not. "Por texto" loosely maps to q, but limite (default 10) and especially solo_vigentes (default true, meaning older/repealed articles are excluded by default) are never explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Busca articulos por texto") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as cl_articulo or cl_documento, which likely also surface articles.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over cl_articulo, cl_citar, or cl_documento, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is keyword search, which an agent must infer from the verb alone.

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