Track recent Chilean regulatory updates from the Diario Oficial, CGR dicta and SII circulars. Filter by legal area and lookback days to monitor compliance changes.
Rastrea publicaciones recientes del Diario Oficial, dictámenes de la Contraloría (CGR) y circulares del SII.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| materia | No | Materia ('laboral', 'administrativo', 'tributario', 'general') | general |
| dias_atras | No | Días de historial a revisar |
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 whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are limited, or what the scan returns; only the verb 'Rastrea' implicitly suggests a read operation.
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 names the three sources directly and does not waste words.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format, result volume, and how materia/dias_atras shape the scan. The agent knows what sources are checked but not what it receives or how to interpret the output.
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% and both parameters have their own schema descriptions, so the description adds no meaning beyond what the structured field provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Rastrea') and the three source types it monitors (Diario Oficial, CGR dictámenes, SII circulares), which distinguishes it from single-source siblings. However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition that would select this aggregated radar over them.
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 indication of when to use this aggregated radar versus source-specific tools like cgr_search_jurisprudencia, sii_search_circulares, or sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.