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

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

by billibu-n

cl_versiones

Retrieve the version history of a Chilean law by norm ID, including each version's validity period and sentinel warnings for citation checks.

Instructions

Historial de versiones con rango de vigencia y advertencia de centinela.

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>"
    },
    "name": "cl_versiones"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_normaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.4

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 and does not meet it. It hints that results carry validity ranges and some kind of sentinel warning, but never says whether this is a read operation, what the warning signifies, how many versions are returned, or whether pagination applies.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than economy. 'Centinela' reads as internal jargon occupying space that could have carried actual guidance.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves an agent without enough to invoke it correctly or interpret the result. The chain of obtaining id_norma and the meaning of the sentinel warning are both missing.

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% for the single parameter id_norma, and the description says nothing about it — not its meaning, source (presumably from cl_buscar), or format. With one undocumented parameter the description was the only place to compensate, and it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (version history of a norm) and adds two qualifiers (validity range, sentinel warning), which distinguishes it loosely from siblings like cl_articulo or cl_buscar. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and the meaning of 'advertencia de centinela' is never explained, so an agent cannot form a confident picture of what the tool returns.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus cl_articulo, cl_buscar, or the other siblings. A user must already know that a version history is needed and that this tool is the one that provides it.

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