mcp-sii

by crilam

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools clearly target distinct resources (properties, mipyme invoices, DTE documents, BHE, session). However, sii_mipyme_list_dte_emitidos and sii_dte_list_documentos_emitidos both list emitted DTEs and could be confused without careful reading; descriptions clarify they are different systems.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a predictable sii_<subdomain>_<action>_<object> pattern, with consistent use of list/get/emit/cerrar verbs. The naming is uniform across all 12 tools.
Tool Count5/5
The 12 tools are well-scoped for the SII domain, covering several distinct areas without excessive granularity. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
Completeness3/5
The set covers reading properties, listing/emitting DTEs in mipyme, querying DTE via consultas, and BHE summaries, but lacks cancellation/annulment operations, BHE emission, and a get-detail for mipyme DTEs. These gaps limit full workflow coverage.
Average 4/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 51 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions the digital certificate requirement. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe return format, pagination, or error handling, which is a significant gap for a list operation.
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 short, front-loaded sentences that deliver the core purpose and a prerequisite without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place, making it ideal for quick parsing.
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?
Given the tool's 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about filtering behavior, return structure, or how the certificate integrates with the parameters, leaving the agent without enough context for correct invocation.
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 has 83% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it only hints at the overall purpose of listing received DTEs.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('DTEs recibidos por la empresa'), and explicitly names the context ('Consultas DTE del SII'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool for issued documents ('emitidos') through the word 'recibidos'.
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 description provides a prerequisite ('Requiere certificado digital') but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool for issued documents or any selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the digital certificate requirement. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether a session is needed, any rate limits, or what kind of response to expect. Minimal behavioral detail.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and includes the key prerequisite. No fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.
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?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a listing tool with moderate complexity, more context is needed for an agent to know what to expect.
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?
Schema description coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic details beyond the schema, but the parameter names are mostly self-explanatory. 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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('DTEs emitidos por la empresa') within the SII DTE consultation context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sii_dte_list_documentos_recibidos' or 'sii_dte_get_documento_emitido'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to list issued DTEs, and it mentions a prerequisite (requires digital certificate). However, it offers no explicit comparison to alternatives like 'sii_mipyme_list_dte_emitidos' or 'sii_dte_list_documentos_recibidos', so usage context is mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the digital certificate requirement and the conditional behavior for non-current-month documents, adding useful context. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or what 'detalle' encompasses, leaving notable gaps.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no filler. Every clause contributes value: purpose, a conditional parameter hint, and an important authentication requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a specialized get-tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, authentication, and one parameter behavior. It does not explain return structure, pagination (if any), or edge cases like missing documents. Adequate for simple retrieval but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics for fecha_doc by specifying when it is needed (if the document is not from the current month), which is not obvious from the schema alone. This elevates it above the baseline 3.
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 retrieves details of a specific received DTE by folio, using the phrase 'Detalle de un DTE recibido específico por folio'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sii_dte_list_documentos_recibidos (list) and sii_dte_get_documento_emitido (emitted, not received).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving a specific DTE by folio, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. It provides a conditional instruction for including fecha_doc for older documents, which is helpful but not a full alternative/exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It details the returned fields and scope, but does not mention authentication prerequisites (beyond the implied authenticated RUT), error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This provides moderate transparency.
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 three sentences: it states the purpose, enumerates the output data, and clarifies the scope. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it both concise and front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the aggregate content per month and the dependency on the authenticated person. It lacks details on response format or edge cases (e.g., months with no activity), but this is a minor gap for a summary tool.
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 sole parameter 'anio' is fully described in the schema ('Año tributario a consultar'), covering 100% of parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema is sufficient.
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 this tool provides an annual summary of electronic fee receipts (boletas de honorarios) for the authenticated person RUT, listing specific aggregated data per month. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 notes that the tool does not require SII_EMPRESA_RUT and is tied to the person rather than the company, which helps select it for personal RUT queries. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like sii_bhe_list_emitidas, so alternatives are implied rather than named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key prerequisite ('Requiere certificado digital') and a conditional behavior (fecha_doc needed for non-current-month documents). However, it omits other behavioral aspects like response format, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that immediately state the main purpose, then add the conditional date hint and certificate requirement. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, the required certificate, and a key usage nuance. However, it could be improved by describing what the response contains or clarifying behavior when the document is not found.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds a small amount of context for fecha_doc (when to use it), but this largely repeats the schema's explanation. No additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Detalle de un DTE emitido específico por tipo y folio' (detail of a specific emitted DTE by type and folio). It uses a specific verb ('detalle') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling list tools and the received DTE getter.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for a specific DTE by tipo and folio. It also gives a conditional usage hint for fecha_doc when the document is not from the current month, and notes the certificate requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('Emite') and the return value ('Devuelve el folio asignado'), but does not mention authentication requirements, session prerequisites, or the permanence of the emission. This lacks the depth expected for a mutation tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and every clause serves a purpose. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the 5-parameter schema covers all inputs and the description mentions the return value, the tool is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on authentication state or that the emission is a final submission to SII, which would be helpful in the broader SII tool context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a useful clarification that RUT and DV are separate, but no other parameter semantics beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb 'Emite' with a resource 'DTE' and clearly names the system (mipyme.sii.cl). It distinguishes from sibling list/get tools by indicating this is the emission tool, and even provides examples of DTE types.
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?
It clearly states that RUT and DV must be provided separately, giving necessary usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, though sibling names make the distinction apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only list operation and states the returned fields (folio, tipo, receptor, monto, estado), but it does not disclose requirements like an active session, rate limits, or potential errors beyond the basic operation.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. It efficiently conveys the system and output without unnecessary detail, earning every word.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what is returned (folio, tipo, receptor, monto, estado). For a simple list tool with all optional parameters, this covers the essential context, though pagination and session prerequisites are not mentioned.
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?
Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only lists the output fields, which does not increase parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 the tool lists the history of issued DTEs in the SII Free Invoicing System (mipyme.sii.cl), using a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('historial de DTE emitidos'). It also names the system, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other SII subsystems.
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 provides clear context by explicitly naming the system (mipyme.sii.cl) and the scope (issued DTEs), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use sii_dte_list_documentos_emitidos instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (folio, fecha, contraparte, honorario bruto, retenciones, total líquido, anulada), the scope (per person, monthly), and an important behavioral trait (does not require company RUT). This goes beyond a simple 'list' and sets expectations for data content.
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 extremely efficient: two sentences convey purpose, output fields, and a key distinction (person-level vs company-level). Every clause adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description adequately tells the agent what the tool returns and its scope. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination, but for a straightforward list with a defined field set, it is reasonably complete.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Mes a consultar', 'Año a consultar'). The description adds context that the month is the issuance month, but this is already implied. No additional parameter-level detail is needed, 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 'Lists electronic fee invoices issued by the authenticated person's RUT in a month' with a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'emitidas' (issued) and explicitly noting it does not require SII_EMPRESA_RUT, which differentiates it from company-level tools.
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 provides clear context: it lists issued invoices for the authenticated person, and explicitly states when not to use it (no SII_EMPRESA_RUT needed). It doesn't name alternative tools but the sibling names (e.g., sii_bhe_list_recibidas) imply the counterpart, making usage intent clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that retencionEmisor is always null for received receipts due to SII behavior, which is a data quirk beyond the schema. It also states the authentication scope (persona, not empresa). Since no annotations are provided, this context is essential and well-addressed. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the listing verb implies it.
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 a single sentence with multiple clauses but every part contributes valuable info: purpose, fields, null field note, and auth scope. It is not excessively long and leads with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a complete picture for a list tool: what it lists, for whom, with which fields, and the null behavior. Since there is no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is critical and is done thoroughly. The auth note completes the context.
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?
Both parameters (anio, mes) are fully described in the JSON schema with ranges. The description only references them as 'en un mes' and does not add additional syntax or format details. Given 100% schema coverage, the description provides no extra value for parameters.
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 identifies the tool as listing received electronic fee receipts (boletas de honorarios electrónicas) for the authenticated person's RUT within a specified month. It specifies the exact fields returned and distinguishes from emitted receipts by the word 'recibidas' and the sibling 'sii_bhe_list_emitidas'.
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 notes that the tool operates at the persona level and does not require SII_EMPRESA_RUT, which helps users decide when to use this tool versus enterprise-level tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools by name or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context beyond mere action: it discloses the session limit, error code, and advises closing to avoid issues. However, it does not describe return values or error handling, which would make it more transparent.
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 sentences long: one states the action, the other provides rationale. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant words or repetition of schema information.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter logout tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the action, gives a rationale (session limits, error code), and suggests when to use it. It could add details about the response format or behavior when no session is open, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's core function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly does not include parameter details since none exist.
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 uses the specific verb 'Cierra' (closes) with the resource 'la sesión abierta en el SII' (the open session in the SII), which clearly states the tool's function. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that list or emit documents, as none handle session management.
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 explains that SII limits simultaneous sessions and blocks when exceeded (error code), and recommends closing the session when finished ('conviene cerrarla al terminar'). This provides clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a list operation, describes the scope (person RUT), and details the output contents including a summary. However, it does not mention potential pagination, error conditions, or explicitly state that it is read-only, though 'Lista' implies non-mutating behavior.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and every clause adds value—listing the data fields and then providing a critical note about the authentication scope. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the data returned, the summary, and the key difference from company-level tools. Minor gaps include lack of return format specifics or error handling, but the provided details are sufficient for a straightforward list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. It appropriately explains the operation's context and output without needing to clarify parameter usage.
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 the tool's function: 'Lista los bienes raíces (propiedades) del RUT persona autenticado en el SII' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing it operates on the person's RUT rather than an empresa, and lists the exact data fields returned.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is for the authenticated person's real estate properties, and explicitly states 'No requiere SII_EMPRESA_RUT: cuelga de la persona, no de la empresa,' which tells the agent not to supply an empresa context. While it doesn't name an alternative sibling tool, the scope distinction is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly frames this as a read-only listing action and mentions the authentication scope ('persona autenticada'). It does not describe return format or pagination, but for a simple no-parameter listing tool the verb 'Lista' sufficiently conveys non-mutating behavior.
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 a single, efficiently written sentence that front-loads the core action and result scope, then adds essential usage timing. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description fully covers what the tool does, the system and scope, and when to invoke it. It is complete in context, especially as a discovery step before DTE-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description need not explain any parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify and no mismatch.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('empresas que la persona autenticada puede operar'), and identifies the exact system (SII free invoicing, mipyme.sii.cl). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list DTEs or properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use: 'Usar antes de otras tools cuando SII_EMPRESA_RUT no está configurado.' This gives a concrete precondition and implies that when the environment variable is configured, this tool is not needed. It serves as a discovery/prerequisite step without needing to name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sii MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crilam/mcp-sii/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crilam/mcp-sii)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sii MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crilam/mcp-sii/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crilam/mcp-sii)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/crilam/mcp-sii'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server