confirmar_alertasMarca como entregado un lote de obtener_alertas_nuevas, para que no se vuelva a ofrecer. Llamarla dos veces con el mismo lote_id no cambia nada.
Marca como entregado un lote de obtener_alertas_nuevas, para que no se vuelva a ofrecer. Llamarla dos veces con el mismo lote_id no cambia nada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lote_id | Yes | El lote_id que entregó obtener_alertas_nuevas. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true, so the 'calling twice changes nothing' sentence is partly redundant, but the description still adds real value by naming the state change (delivered) and its consequence (the batch is no longer offered). It does not cover auth/permission needs, but that is a minor gap for such a narrow mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and its effect front-loaded before the idempotency note.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, the source of the input, and the resulting effect.
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 100% and the single lote_id parameter is already documented with its pattern and origin. The description restates lote_id's source but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (marca como entregado) and a specific resource (un lote de obtener_alertas_nuevas), and ties the tool to the producer of that batch. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like obtener_alertas_nuevas without opening either schema.
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?
Makes clear the context of use: consume a batch returned by obtener_alertas_nuevas so it is not offered again. It names the related tool and the goal, though it does not state an explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative confirmation path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.