get_clientAn organization's federal lobbying: the firms it hires and what it pays them, its most recent quarterly spending and past-year total, the issues it lobbies on and the lobbyists on its account. Accepts a Gov Relations slug or a name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Organization name or slug, e.g. "Microsoft" or "microsoft-corporation-12345". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful scope context by enumerating what data is returned, but lacks auth, pagination, or freshness details.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the main returned data without filler.
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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: scope, accepted identifier, and the types of return data. It is complete enough for correct 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 100%, and the single client parameter is documented with examples. The description adds no new syntax or format detail beyond restating that it accepts a slug or name.
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 the resource and returned data (firms, payments, quarterly/past-year spending, issues, lobbyists) with enough specificity to distinguish an organization-level lookup from firm/lobbyist/agency siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the 5 criterion.
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?
Gives only the input format ('slug or name') and no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings like get_firm or who_lobbies_agency. Usage must be inferred from the resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.