Explains the search sources and filters for Puerto Rico Supreme Court cases, guiding users to configure queries accurately and locate relevant decisions.
Explica las fuentes y filtros del núcleo jurisprudencial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campo | No | fuentes | |
| consulta | No |
| 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?
The verb 'Explica' indicates an informational, non-mutating behavior, which is useful given that no annotations are provided. However, the description does not disclose what the returned content looks like, whether it is static help text, or how the 'campo' and 'consulta' parameters affect the response.
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 sentence with no filler and fronts the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary context about parameters and usage, so it is not fully appropriately sized.
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 the lack of annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and a large set of search-related siblings, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently determine when to call the tool or what inputs to provide. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter guidance.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions 'campo' or 'consulta'. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the parameter titles and defaults, leaving the purpose of 'consulta' especially unclear.
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 uses a concrete verb ('Explica') and identifies a resource (the sources and filters of the jurisprudential core), so it is reasonably clear that this is an explanatory/help tool rather than another search sibling. However, 'núcleo jurisprudencial' is left undefined, and several sibling tools are also source-related, so it does not fully distinguish itself.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as buscar_sentencias, catalogo_fuentes_juridicas, or politica_vigencia_fuentes. The only implication is that it provides background on search options, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.