Retrieve procurement process states and their IDs for use as filters in COMPRASAL queries.
List procurement process states with their ids, to use as id_estado filters.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_states"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits) that might be relevant for a listing tool.
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 primary action ('list') and resource ('procurement process states'), then adds relevant context. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output. It could mention the exact fields returned (e.g., id, name), but the current description is adequate for a simple enumeration 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?
The input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the output contains ids and implies the items are states, which aids an agent in understanding the response format.
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 states the tool lists procurement process states with their ids, and explicitly mentions the purpose of using these as id_estado filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_institutions or list_modalities by specifying the exact resource and use case.
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 usage: 'to use as id_estado filters' suggests when filtering by state, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings like search_procurement or get_process_detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.