Inspect Primavera Unifier business processes read-only: validate the shell, query records, and summarize statuses, assignees, amounts, and recent entries.
Inspector de BP de solo lectura: valida el shell y consulta un Business Process. Resume estados, responsables, importes detectados y los últimos registros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpname | Yes | ||
| record_fields | No | ||
| project_number | Yes | ||
| filter_condition | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: 'solo lectura' (read-only). It also implies the output is a bounded summary ('los últimos registros'), which hints at result limiting. It says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when the shell/BP is missing, or pagination.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the read-only nature and the core action, then lists the returned content. No filler; the size is appropriate. Only minor cost is that the field list compresses two undocumented parameters out of the picture.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description helpful by outlining the return contents (statuses, assignees, amounts, latest records). However, with two of four parameters undocumented and no note on shell-validation failure behavior, it is not fully sufficient for confident invocation.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies project_number maps to the shell and bpname to the BP, but record_fields and filter_condition are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters with no semantics anywhere.
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 and resource: a read-only 'inspector de BP' that 'valida el shell y consulta un Business Process', plus a sketch of what it returns (estados, responsables, importes, últimos registros). It reads as a summary/overview tool, which separates it loosely from raw record-listing siblings, but it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the obvious alternatives (unifier_list_bp_records, unifier_find_bp_record). The word 'Resume' hints at a summarization role, but the agent must infer that this is the overview tool rather than the record-fetching tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.