OpenPublica

List government documents

list_government_documents

Read-only

List a government's adopted plan and budget documents.

Each entry carries `covers` — every general-plan element that document
answers for. A city that publishes one bound general plan satisfies all
eight with the same PDF, so do not conclude an element is unpublished
because no entry is named after it.

`status` says what the entry offers: `converted` is searchable and readable;
`superseded` is a retired edition, still stored but not searchable; and
**`failed` means we hold this document and could not read it — it is not
evidence the city published nothing.** Cite `source_url` in that case; it is
always the city's own copy.

An `availability` block appears ONLY when something is wrong with a
document, and `availability.reason` says what. No `availability` key means
there is nothing to report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`government_id`	Yes	account_id from find_local_governments.
`include_superseded`	No	Also include prior editions retired by a newer document.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially extends the annotations by explaining the `covers` semantics, the meaning of each `status` value, and the conditional presence of `availability`. It also warns against false conclusions from missing entries and failed documents, aligning with and expanding on the openWorldHint.

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 opening sentence states the core purpose, and every following sentence adds disambiguating detail about result semantics. Formatting like bold `failed` and the `availability` condition makes the most important caveats easy to scan without wasted words.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the critical output fields, the meaning of failure, and the conditionality of availability. For a read-only listing tool with two well-documented parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and interpret the call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context for `include_superseded` by explaining that superseded means a retired, non-searchable edition. This helps an agent understand exactly what including superseded documents entails.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a government's adopted plan and budget documents.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as get_document, search_documents, or list_recent_meetings by the object being listed and the adoption/budget scope.

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 makes the intended use clear, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus search_documents, get_document, or get_coverage_overview. The usage context is strongly implied rather than explicitly routed.

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?