Skip to main content
Glama

Find Super PAC Recipient Committees

super_pac_donors_recipient
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a super PAC or hybrid PAC in the Super PAC Donors Register by committee name substring, as the FEC committee master lists it, or by its committee id (C followed by 8 digits). Returns up to 5 committees, each for the 2025-26 and 2023-24 cycles with its name, id and committee type as the FEC lists them, and three measures, each labelled and never combined into one figure: organisation contributions by reviewed class (issue and social-welfare groups split by IRS match; withheld and unreviewed money as amounts only), contributions from committees, and itemized contributions from individuals, counted only; conduit pass-through rows (ActBlue, WinRed) are shown apart under their own label and are excluded from every total. Each cycle lists the largest named organisation donors to that committee and the committee's own FEC summary line. Super PACs and hybrid PACs are named exactly as the FEC committee master lists them, with their committee ids and no party or candidate label; a contribution to a super PAC is not a contribution to a candidate. Organisation, committee and individual money into super PACs are three measures, each labelled and never combined into one figure. Organisation money is not corporate money: every total states its class. The word nonprofit appears only on a record an exact IRS Exempt Organizations match carries, shown with that record; other issue and social-welfare groups read organisation (status not matched). Every answer carries the register's question note: these records show contributions reported to the FEC; they do not show what any donor received or intended, and they do not show cause and effect. Individual donors are counted, never named; withheld strings (trusts, holding vehicles, businesses named for a person, names resting on initials, unmatched committees) and unreviewed strings appear only as counts and amounts. Every answer quotes the FEC's restriction on the sale or use of individual contributor information (52 U.S.C. 30111(a)(4)) and the FEC bulk file date; the bulk file lags the committees' latest reports.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
committeeYesRequired case-insensitive committee name substring as the FEC lists it, or a committee id (C and 8 digits); at most 80 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: up to five results, two cycles, separate conduit rows, individual donors being counted but never named, the FEC legal restriction, and bulk-file lag. It does not contradict any annotation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description is extremely long for a one-parameter lookup and repeats key caveats, especially that the three measures are each labelled and never combined. Several sentences could be compressed or removed without losing needed meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does so thoroughly: up to five committees, cycle-specific data, measures, donor rows, FEC summary line, legal note, and bulk-file timing. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The single committee parameter has 100% schema coverage with the same substring-or-id guidance already present in the schema. The description reinforces that names are as the FEC lists them and ids are C plus eight digits, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb (look up) and resource (super PAC or hybrid PAC committees in the Super PAC Donors Register), plus the two lookup modes: committee name substring or committee id. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling donor/summary tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for finding committees by name substring or committee id, but it never states when to choose it over super_pac_donors_donor or super_pac_donors_summary, nor does it give exclusions or preconditions. Usage is inferable from the name and description but not explicitly guided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources