Acerca de MCP Legal Chile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, return format, side effects). The agent has no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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?

Extremely short (one line) but under-specified. Consiseness is undermined by lack of useful information; the sentence does not earn its place because it fails to communicate 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the result, leaving a significant gap for a metadata/informational tool.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context (catalog, honest matrix, SLOs) beyond the empty schema but does not explain parameters (none exist).

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?

Description lists three nouns ('Catalog, honesty matrix, and SLOs') but lacks a verb to indicate action. It does not clearly state that the tool provides information about the MCP server, leaving purpose ambiguous. No differentiation from sibling tools (search and retrieval tools) is provided.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.