Skip to main content
Glama
edwin042331-hue

dgcp-mcp-server

by edwin042331-hue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Generador de Recurso de Impugnación y Medida Cautelar ante la DGCP

dgcp_generador_recurso_impugnacion
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draft a formal hierarchical appeal with an ex officio suspension request before the DGCP to halt a procurement process or contract and prevent irreparable harm.

Instructions

Redacta un Recurso Jerárquico formal con Solicitud de Medida Cautelar de Suspensión de Oficio ante la DGCP:

  1. Fundamentado en la Ley 340-06, Decreto 543-12, Ley 107-13 sobre Procedimiento Administrativo y jurisprudencia del TSA.

  2. Contiene estructura jurídica formal de tribunal: Calidad, Hechos, Derecho, Agravios y Petitorio formal.

  3. Solicita la suspensión inmediata del proceso o contrato para evitar la consumación de daños irreparables.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
acto_atacadoYesActo que se impugna (ej. 'Acta de Adjudicación No. XX', 'Pliego de Condiciones', 'Acta de Descalificación Técnica').
representanteYesNombre del representante legal.
codigo_procesoYesCodigo oficial del proceso licitado.
motivo_agravioYesCausal de violación (ej. 'Descalificación arbitraria habiendo cumplido ficha técnica', 'Adjudicación a empresa con precio superior sin justificación', 'Colusión demostrada entre oferentes').
rnc_recurrenteYesRNC de tu empresa.
empresa_recurrenteYesNombre de tu empresa que somete el recurso.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the generated output: legal foundations, formal sections (Calidad, Hechos, Derecho, Agravios, Petitorio), and the inclusion of a suspension request.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then uses three numbered points to organize legal basis, document structure, and the suspension request. It is efficient and structured, though slightly list-heavy rather than narrative.

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 six-parameter legal document generator with no output schema, the description gives enough context about the generated content and legal basis. It does not specify output format (e.g., text, PDF) or that it only drafts rather than files, but the title and 'Redacta' make the generation purpose sufficiently clear.

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%, with all six required parameters documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Redacta), a precise resource (Recurso Jerárquico formal con Solicitud de Medida Cautelar de Suspensión de Oficio ante la DGCP), and the legal basis. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling generators such as dgcp_generador_propuesta_sncc.

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 that this tool is for drafting a formal challenge with a precautionary suspension request, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like dgcp_calculadora_legal or dgcp_auditor_pliego_trampa. Usage context is inferable from the legal document type rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools