List verified INEGI indicators with their ID and geographic coverage, optionally filtered by theme such as population, prices, employment, or economic activity.
Lista los indicadores verificados del catálogo, con su ID y cobertura geográfica.
Args: tema: Filtra por tema (opcional): 'Población', 'Precios', 'Empleo' o 'Actividad económica'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tema | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It reveals that only verified indicators are listed and that ID/geographic coverage are returned, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or auth/rate-limit characteristics.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence adds useful information, and the parameter details earn their place because the schema lacks descriptions/enums.
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?
This is a low-complexity one-parameter catalog-listing tool with an output schema, and the description covers the purpose, optional filter, and key output fields. The main missing piece is explicit routing relative to sibling tools.
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 explain the single optional 'tema' parameter. It does this well by naming the parameter, marking it optional, and enumerating the accepted theme values; only minor details like exact matching/case sensitivity are absent.
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 ('Lista') and resource ('indicadores verificados del catálogo'), and adds that results include ID and geographic coverage. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like consultar_indicador or metadatos_indicador.
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?
Explains the optional theme filter and its categorical values, implying discovery/catalog use. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus consultar_indicador or metadatos_indicador, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.