Query crosswalk mappings by Spanish ENS measure or external framework reference to identify equivalent security controls for compliance assessments.
Consulta un crosswalk por medida ENS o referencia del otro marco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| pack_id | Yes | ||
| ens_code | No | ||
| include_inactive | No | ||
| external_reference | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not explain pagination behavior implied by limit/cursor, what 'inactive' records mean for include_inactive, or how results are shaped.
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 with no padding, which is structurally clean. But the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a six-parameter tool.
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?
With 6 parameters, an output schema present, and safety already covered by annotations, the description still omits usage context, required-parameter emphasis, and pagination semantics. It is too thin for an agent to invoke this correctly on first attempt.
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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only loosely maps to two of them ('medida ENS' ~ ens_code, 'referencia del otro marco' ~ external_reference) and says nothing about the required pack_id, limit, cursor, or include_inactive.
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 ('Consulta un crosswalk') plus the filter axes ('medida ENS', 'referencia del otro marco'), so an agent can tell it retrieves crosswalk mappings. However, it does not clarify what a 'crosswalk' is or how it differs from measure-lookup siblings like get_measure or search_measures, leaving scope only partially pinned down.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when to prefer query_crosswalk over list_measures or search_measures, nor that pack_id is mandatory context for every call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.