get_government_infoGet a tracked government's profile: name, location, and meeting categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| government_id | Yes | The account_id of the government. | |
| include_weekly_summary | No | If true, include the AI-generated weekly digest (markdown). Default false. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result contains name, location, and meeting categories, but says nothing about permissions, tracking prerequisites, or response behavior beyond that.
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 clear, compact sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then lists the return contents. There is no redundant phrasing or 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, two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It does not explicitly say how to obtain a government_id for untracked governments, but the sibling find_* tools make that inferable.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the qualifier that the government must be 'tracked', which slightly clarifies government_id but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a tracked government's profile'), and names the returned content ('name, location, and meeting categories'). It implies a distinction from sibling lookup tools like find_governments_by_name or get_government_stats, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 phrase 'a tracked government' implies this tool is for governments already known/tracked by ID, and the required government_id supports that. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this over siblings such as find_governments_by_name or get_government_stats.
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.