Search a term across 10 Chilean state agencies in one query and retrieve results with ready-to-use citations.
Busca un término a la vez en los 10 organismos del Estado (BCN, CGR, DT, PJUD, TC, CNE, Panel de Expertos, CMF, SII, SMA/TDLC) y devuelve los resultados con sus citas listas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| consulta | Yes | Término o frase a buscar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. It discloses that queries are one term at a time and that results come with citations ready, but omits operational details such as authentication, rate limits, timeout behavior, or whether all 10 sources are queried live.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope; the 10-organism list is necessary for scope precision and no sentence is wasted.
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description names scope and output format. However, with no annotations and many siblings, it leaves usage and operational expectations underspecified.
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 parameter is documented in schema. Description adds meaningful constraint 'un término a la vez' clarifying the parameter accepts one term, not multiple, beyond schema's 'Término o frase'.
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?
States a specific verb 'Busca', resource 'término', scope across 10 named state organisms, and output with citations. The enumeration of organisms distinguishes it from per-agency siblings like cgr_search_jurisprudencia and sii_search_circulares, which target single institutions.
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?
Scope implies use for cross-organism searches, and 'un término a la vez' constrains input, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the many per-agency sibling tools or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.