search_membersSearch current U.S. members of Congress by name, state, party, or chamber. Returns a list of matching members with key details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results | |
| party | No | Political party | |
| query | No | Search by name | |
| state | No | Two-letter state code (e.g., "CA") | |
| chamber | No | Congressional chamber |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds 'current' scope and mentions it returns a list with key details, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format beyond schema, or how partial matches are handled, leaving room for more transparency.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and primary filters. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
As a search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core operation. However, it omits specifics about what 'key details' are returned and does not mention limit defaults or pagination, which would be useful for an agent to set expectations.
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 every parameter has a description. The tool description merely repeats the filter dimensions (name, state, party, chamber) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches current U.S. Congress members by name, state, party, or chamber and returns a list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_member, which likely fetches a specific member, by indicating a broad search capability.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (searching by criteria) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_member or get_representatives. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so usage context is only inferred.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: efforts, members, policies, stories, representatives, voter info, and text retrieval. Even similar tools like get_effort and resolve_effort clearly differ in input type (ID vs natural language), and get_stories vs get_story follow the standard list/detail distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lower_snake_case: get_ for retrieval, search_ for queries, and resolve_ for name resolution. Nouns are clear and descriptive, with no mixing of styles or inconsistent verbs.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a U.S. political policy tracking service. Each tool provides a distinct utility without overwhelming the surface, fitting solidly within the expected range.
The tool surface covers the core read-only workflows: searching and retrieving policies and members, resolving and retrieving efforts, listing and retrieving story bundles, and looking up representatives and voter info. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated purpose.