Fetches the official, current text of any Chilean law by its number, with optional article lookup, so agents can verify statutes directly from BCN sources.
Consulta el texto oficial y vigente de una ley chilena por su número (ej. Ley 21.643 Karin, Ley 21.561 40 Horas, Ley 19.886 Compras Públicas).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| numero | Yes | Número de la ley | |
| articulo | No | Artículo específico (opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only consultation of official, current text, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or return format, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The examples are useful and do not bloat the definition.
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?
Given the low complexity, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It omits the optional article parameter and any return-format detail, but those are either covered by the schema or inferable from 'Consulta el texto'.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that lookup is by law number, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, and it does not mention the optional articulo parameter.
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 specific verb (Consulta), resource (texto oficial y vigente de una ley chilena), and lookup key (por su número). The word 'vigente' distinguishes it from the sibling bcn_get_ley_historica, and the examples make the scope concrete for an agent.
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?
It gives clear context: use this tool when you need the official and current text of a Chilean law identified by number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'vigente' implies the historical-version sibling is a different use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.