Retrieve active power plants and energy projects from Chile’s CNE/SEA registry, optionally filtered by region, to support legal and environmental research.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Consulta' implies a read-only lookup, which is useful, but the description does not state whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how results are formatted. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate, but more explicit read-only or safety notes would help.
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 that captures the essence of the tool with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and easy to parse.
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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description states what the tool does but omits usage guidance and return-value expectations. It is minimally viable: an agent knows it queries a registry, but not what a response looks like or when this tool is preferred. It could more fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
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 'region' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Región de Chile (opcional)'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., valid values, filtering behavior beyond what the schema states). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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') and resource ('registro de centrales generadoras activas y proyectos energéticos') with clear scope ('en el SEA de la Comisión Nacional de Energía'). No sibling tools cover energy registries, so differentiation is trivial, and an agent can immediately understand what data this tool retrieves.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would select it over other tools. It merely describes the resource, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.