Query Chile's CNE registry of active power plants and SEA energy projects, optionally filtered by region.
Consulta el registro de centrales generadoras activas y proyectos energéticos en el SEA de la Comisión Nacional de Energía (CNE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Región de Chile (opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds data-scope context ('active' plants and energy projects in the SEA), but no auth, rate-limit, or response-shape details.
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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 read-only registry query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough scope to call it correctly. It does not mention the optional region filter, but the schema covers that; return-format details are unnecessary without an output schema.
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% for the single optional 'region' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.
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 ('Consulta') and resource (registry of active generating plants and energy projects in the CNE's SEA). It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or conditions are provided. The description only states what the tool consults, so an agent gets no help deciding when to select it over other search/consult tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.