Retrieves a specific ENS security measure by its exact code, such as "org.1". Use it to access official Spanish national security framework measures for compliance checks.
Obtiene una medida de seguridad por su código exacto, p. ej. "org.1".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Result"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_measureOutput"New value: +"get_measureDictOutput"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description needn't restate safety. The description adds the exact-code matching constraint, which is mildly useful, but says nothing beyond annotations about error behavior or scope.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The example 'org.1' adds concrete value without bloat.
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?
Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. But with 0% parameter schema coverage and no sibling differentiation among many similar list/search tools, the description is only minimally complete for correct tool selection.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'code' parameter has no schema description. The description clarifies that the code must be exact (e.g. 'org.1'), which compensates somewhat, but lacks format or validation details. For 1 param with no schema description, this is a modest addition.
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 (obtiene) and resource (medida de seguridad) retrieved by exact code. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like search_measures, list_measures, or get_dda, leaving ambiguity about when exact-code lookup is appropriate versus search.
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 such as search_measures or list_measures. The 'código exacto' phrase hints at exact-match retrieval but doesn't contrast with siblings or state prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.