OpenPublica

Discover category and topic filters

discover_meeting_vocabulary

Read-only

Discover the valid category and topic filter values before filtering a search.

Meeting `category_tag`s are opaque UUIDs and topics have no fixed list, so you
cannot guess them. Call this first to get the real values, then pass a returned
`category_tag` (from `categories[].tags`) or `topic` string into
`search_meetings_semantic` / `list_recent_meetings`. Scope with a government
and/or date range; calls without explicit dates default to a recent window
(returned as `default_window_days`).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end_date`	No	Optional latest date, MM-DD-YYYY.
`start_date`	No	Optional earliest date, MM-DD-YYYY.
`topic_limit`	No	Max topics to return, most common first (1-200).
`government_id`	No	Optional account_id to scope the vocabulary to one government.
`government_ids`	No	Optional list of account_ids to scope to several governments. Overrides government_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: category_tags are opaque UUIDs, topics have no fixed list, and date-less calls default to a window exposed as default_window_days. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact—about four sentences—and front-loads the primary purpose before explaining rationale and usage. Every sentence contributes: purpose, why guessing fails, what to do with results, and scoping/default behavior.

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?

Given the output schema is present and annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, the description supplies the essential workflow context: use it as a discovery step, scope optionally, and pass returned values downstream. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for start_date, end_date, topic_limit, government_id, and government_ids. The description does not add detailed parameter-level semantics beyond summarizing that scoping can use government and/or date range, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Discover the valid category and topic filter values before filtering a search.' It also explains the deeper purpose—opaque UUIDs and non-fixed topics—making it clearly distinct from sibling search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to call this first, that values cannot be guessed, and that discovered values should be passed into search_meetings_semantic or list_recent_meetings. This gives clear when-to-use and routing guidance to the correct sibling tools.

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

All OpenPublica tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: government discovery, meeting search, transcript search, document listing, and document reading are all cleanly separated. The three find_governments tools overlap in purpose but are differentiated by input type (name, ZIP, coordinates), and the descriptions explicitly call out when to prefer one over another.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent and predictable verb_noun pattern: find_governments_by_*, get_*, list_*, search_*, read_*, and discover_*. The qualifiers are descriptive and parallel, making the intended action and resource obvious from the name alone.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, the set is at the upper end of the ideal range but every tool earns its place by covering a distinct capability across two related domains: meetings and government documents. There is no filler or redundancy; the count feels well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

For a read-only public-records service, the surface is remarkably complete: government resolution by name/ZIP/coordinates, coverage, stats, meeting discovery/search/retrieval, transcript-level search, and document listing/search/reading all have dedicated tools. There are no obvious dead ends—every search path leads to a retrieval tool that can produce citable quotes, pages, or full transcripts.

Resources

Need Help?