Look up the organic law, supervisory powers, and judicial or administrative complaint routes for Chilean public agencies by acronym or name.
Consulta la ley orgánica, facultades fiscalizadoras y vías de reclamo judicial/administrativo de órganos públicos (SII, CMF, CGR, DT, SERNAC, FNE, SMA, CPLT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organo | Yes | Sigla o nombre del órgano público (ej. 'SII', 'CMF', 'DT', 'FNE') |
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 bears the full burden. It implies a read-only consultation of public-organ information and specifies the subject-matter coverage, which is useful. However, it does not disclose operational traits such as data source, update freshness, authentication needs, or return format.
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 filler. It efficiently lists the legal domains the tool covers and gives concrete organ examples without burying the purpose.
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 one-parameter consultation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what information is retrieved. It could be more complete by indicating the likely return format or source, but the core scope is covered.
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?
There is one required parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The schema already explains that 'organo' takes a sigla or name and gives examples. The description expands the organ examples (CGR, SERNAC, SMA, CPLT), which is mildly useful, but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema 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 ('Consulta') and resource ('órganos públicos'), and enumerates the information domains: ley orgánica, facultades fiscalizadoras, vías de reclamo. This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as graphify_explicar_institucion or doctrina_get_institucion.
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 says what can be consulted but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.