Locate seed cases in the auxiliary directory to identify starting points for legal research. This search does not verify authorities or substitute for a complete legal search.
Busca casos semilla del directorio auxiliar. No verifica ni sustituye la búsqueda jurídica.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maximo | No | ||
| consulta | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are not verified and are not a substitute for legal research, which is useful. However, it does not state other behavioral traits such as whether it only reads data, what the output represents, or how the auxiliary directory may differ from the main legal corpus.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful limitation rather than repeating the tool name or 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?
The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not necessary. Still, the description leaves gaps: no parameter semantics, no explicit relationship to the many sibling research tools, and no clarification of what 'casos semilla' means behaviorally.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description does not mention 'consulta' or 'maximo' or explain how they influence the search. Only the standalone word 'Busca' makes 'consulta' partially inferable, but 'maximo' receives no semantic guidance.
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 clearly identifies a specific action and resource: searching 'casos semilla del directorio auxiliar,' so it is not a tautology. The added clause 'No verifica ni sustituye la búsqueda jurídica' helps distinguish it from verification-oriented research tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 implies the tool is for finding seed cases in the auxiliary directory, which gives some context. It also includes a when-not signal ('No verifica ni sustituye la búsqueda jurídica'), but it does not name a preferred alternative tool or specify conditions under which this should be selected over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.