Search Chile’s CMF official registry of sanction resolutions and proceedings by entity name, infraction, or resolution number to verify regulatory penalties.
Busca en el registro oficial de Resoluciones Sancionatorias y procedimientos de sanción aplicados por la CMF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Nombre de la entidad sancionada, infracción o número de resolución |
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 does not disclose read-only status, authorization requirements, result format, pagination, or limitations, leaving the agent with little beyond the basic purpose.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every element serves to identify the registry being searched.
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 one-parameter search tool, the description plus schema is enough to invoke it. However, it omits routing guidance among several similar search siblings and gives no sense of result scope, so it is only minimally 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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that 'query' accepts an entity name, infraction, or resolution number. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Busca', and names the exact resource: the official registry of CMF sanction resolutions and sanction procedures. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as cmf_search_normativa, which covers regulations rather than sanctions.
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 states what is searched but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over alternatives like sma_search_sancionatorios or cmf_search_normativa, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.