CE3X-MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Registrar Visita Presencial

registrar_visita_presencial

Registers mandatory on-site visits and generates Annex IV justification required by RD 390/2021 for existing-building CE3X certificates.

Instructions

Registra formalmente la visita presencial obligatoria exigida por el Art. 8 del RD 390/2021, generando el documento justificativo del Anexo IV preceptivo para el registro administrativo autonómico.

Cuándo usar: Invoque esta herramienta de forma preceptiva para todo certificado de edificio existente para acreditar la visita presencial del técnico competente.

Comportamiento y efectos secundarios: Operación de registro y generación documental (Write). Crea el acta de visita presencial en disco.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fecha_visita`	Yes	Fecha de la visita presencial en formato YYYY-MM-DD (ej. '2026-10-17').
`pruebas_realizadas`	Yes	Descripción de las pruebas y comprobaciones in situ realizadas (ej. 'Inspección visual de cerramientos, medición láser, toma de datos de caldera').
`observaciones_tecnicas`	No	Observaciones técnicas adicionales recogidas durante la inspección.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fecha_visita / description

Added value: +"Fecha de la visita presencial en formato YYYY-MM-DD (ej. '2026-10-17')."

removedInput schema / properties / observaciones_tecnicas / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

changedInput schema / properties / observaciones_tecnicas / default
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +""
```

addedInput schema / properties / observaciones_tecnicas / description

Added value: +"Observaciones técnicas adicionales recogidas durante la inspección."

addedInput schema / properties / observaciones_tecnicas / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

removedInput schema / properties / pruebas_realizadas / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / pruebas_realizadas / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

addedInput schema / properties / pruebas_realizadas / description

Added value: +"Descripción de las pruebas y comprobaciones in situ realizadas (ej. 'Inspección visual de cerramientos, medición láser, toma de datos de caldera')."

addedInput schema / properties / pruebas_realizadas / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "fecha_visita"
-]New value: +[
+  "fecha_visita",
+  "pruebas_realizadas"
+]

First observedv1.5.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates this while adding value: it labels the operation as a Write and discloses the concrete side effect of generating the Anexo IV acta and writing it to disk. It stops short of noting overwrite behavior, permissions, or what happens on repeated calls for the same certificate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose sentence and uses clear labeled sections ('Cuándo usar', 'Comportamiento y efectos secundarios'), which an agent can parse quickly. There is mild redundancy between 'obligatoria', 'preceptiva' and 'exigida' that could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with 100% schema coverage, annotations indicating a non-destructive write, and the description's legal scope plus disk-write side effect, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the three parameters documented in the schema itself (format YYYY-MM-DD, examples of pruebas and observaciones). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Registra formalmente la visita presencial') and grounds it in the legal instrument (Art. 8 RD 390/2021, Anexo IV). This clearly distinguishes it from the cluster of sibling tools that organize, audit, or certify from the visit folder, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Cuándo usar' section gives an explicit trigger condition: invoke mandatorily for every certificate of an existing building to accredit the technician's on-site visit. It does not, however, name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. new-build certificates, or whether a prior organizar_carpeta_visita step is required), so routing vs. siblings is left partly to inference.

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

Deploy Server