OpenPublica

List recent meetings

list_recent_meetings

Read-only

Browse meetings newest-first, optionally filtered by government, type, topic, or date.

Use this for "what are the most recent meetings" or to page through a
government's history. For topical questions, prefer `search_meetings_semantic`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-based page number for older results.
`limit`	No	Meetings per page (1-25).
`topic`	No	Optional topic filter — a topic name from discover_meeting_vocabulary, e.g. 'Affordable Housing'.
`end_date`	No	Optional latest date, MM-DD-YYYY.
`start_date`	No	Optional earliest date, MM-DD-YYYY.
`category_tag`	No	Optional meeting-type filter — an opaque category_tag from discover_meeting_vocabulary (not a guessable slug; don't invent it).
`government_id`	No	account_id to list meetings for (from find_local_governments). Omit to list across all governments.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered newest-first and support paging/filtering. It could say more about pagination behavior or result limits, but the schema and output schema already carry much of that detail.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core behavior and ordering are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing appears immediately after the main use case. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, fully documented parameters, and clear usage/routing guidance, so the description is largely complete. It could have explicitly pointed users to discover_meeting_vocabulary for valid topic/category_tag values, but the schema already contains those pointers, so the gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a high-level mapping of filters ('government, type, topic, or date') to the parameters, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Browse'), a clear resource (meetings), and the ordering ('newest-first'), plus four optional filter dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from search_meetings_semantic by positioning this tool as the browse/list option rather than the semantic-search option.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'what are the most recent meetings' and paging through a government's history. It also names the alternative tool, search_meetings_semantic, and says to prefer it for topical questions, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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?