Generate and export legal subagent profiles and templates for AI assistants like Claude Code and Cursor, enabling structured role-based legal workflows.
Genera y exporta plantillas y perfiles de subagentes jurídicos para asistentes de IA como Claude Code (.claude/agents/.md) y Cursor (.cursor/rules/.mdc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_dir | No | Directorio destino para guardar los archivos de configuración (opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not mention that this tool writes files to disk, whether it overwrites existing files, whether it creates the target directory automatically, or any side effects. For a file-generating/exporting tool, this is a notable gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose, then specifies the output formats with concrete paths. Zero waste and every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output formats adequately. The main missing context is behavioral (overwrite behavior, directory creation), but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter (target_dir) is already described as the destination directory for configuration files. The description adds value by specifying the default target structure (.claude/agents/*.md and .cursor/rules/*.mdc), which complements the parameter meaning, but it does not add syntax or behavior details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb (genera y exporta) plus a specific resource (plantillas y perfiles de subagentes jurídicos) and the target platforms with concrete file paths (.claude/agents/*.md and .cursor/rules/*.mdc). No sibling tool performs a similar export function, so the purpose is unambiguous and self-distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. Since none of the 80+ siblings perform a similar export role, alternatives are not immediately relevant, but the description still lacks any contextual hint about the intended scenario (e.g., setting up a legal agent workspace). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.