Search binding administrative rulings from Chile's Contraloría General de la República (CGR) by legal query term to find authoritative jurisprudence for casework.
Busca dictámenes vinculantes en la jurisprudencia administrativa de la Contraloría General de la República (CGR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Término de búsqueda jurídica (ej. 'confianza legitima contrata', 'probidad') |
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, yet it discloses nothing about return behavior, result limits, ranking, pagination, or authentication. 'Vinculantes' implies a binding-effect filter but is not explained. Significant gap for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 waste. It states the institution and document type efficiently.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits return format, result limits, and how to scope or refine queries. The schema documents the query param, but the description leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently.
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%; the single 'query' param is documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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') and resource ('dictámenes vinculantes en la jurisprudencia administrativa de la CGR'), identifying both the institution and the document type. It is clear against most siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from other *_search_jurisprudencia siblings (tdlc, pjud, ambiental) beyond naming the CGR.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, scope limits, or exclusions. The word 'vinculantes' hints at a scope filter but is not an actionable usage rule. The agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.