Search Chilean Competition Tribunal jurisprudence—contentious rulings, non-contentious opinions, and General Character Instructions—by term, matter, or company.
Busca en la jurisprudencia del TDLC: sentencias contenciosas, dictámenes no contenciosos e Instrucciones de Carácter General (ICG).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Término de búsqueda, materia o empresa involucrada |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about return format, result limits, pagination, or ranking. For a search tool that is a noticeable gap, though the read-only nature is inferable from the verb.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists scope, with no filler. Slightly under-elaborated rather than verbose, but well structured.
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 search tool with no output schema, the core scope is conveyed. What is missing is routing guidance against the near-identical sibling tdlc_search_jurisprudencia, which is the main contextual ambiguity an agent would face here.
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?
Only one parameter (query) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Término de búsqueda, materia o empresa involucrada'. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond that. 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 (jurisprudencia del TDLC) and enumerates the three document classes it covers: sentencias contenciosas, dictámenes no contenciosos e ICG. That is genuinely clarifying given the tool name only mentions ICG and dictámenes. However, it does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling tdlc_search_jurisprudencia, so an agent cannot tell why it should pick one over the other.
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?
There is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives even though tdlc_search_jurisprudencia covers apparently the same corpus. Usage is only implied by the word 'Busca'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.