get_coverage_overviewGet OpenPublica's overall coverage: total governments, states, and meetings
indexed. DC is tracked but is not a state, so it is reported separately as
includes_dc — read the pair as "N states and DC".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already convey read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds a useful quirk: DC is reported separately as includes_dc, so the result should be read as 'N states and DC.' This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, with no contradiction.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the DC reporting detail is isolated in the second sentence where it adds clarity without cluttering the main definition.
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 parameterless, read-only overview with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports and the one non-obvious interpretation detail (DC handling), so nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on explaining output semantics instead, matching the baseline for a parameterless operation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get OpenPublica's overall coverage' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (total governments, states, meetings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual governments or meetings.
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 provides clear context that this is a platform-wide overview rather than a per-government query, and the DC nuance helps users interpret the result correctly. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the zero-parameter design and 'overall' phrasing make the intended use unambiguous.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.