Skip to main content
Glama

officials

by global.rootz.politics

Candidate Data Feed

politics_candidate_feed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a candidate's Campaign Data Standard (CDS) feed: a single machine-readable record of who they are, the offices they hold and seek, their positions in their own words (each source-linked), their voting record by reference, and declared data gaps. This is the standardized, signed feed an AI or reporter uses to grab a candidate's positions and verify they are genuine. Every MCP response is signed; the standalone signed feed is also at /official/{id}/candidate.json. Tier is "rootz-compiled" until the campaign claims and signs it ("candidate-signed").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoOfficial ID (from politics_search)
expandNoDeliver more positions inline (larger response). Default false = bounded for AI consumption.
bioguide_idNoBioguide ID (alternative to id)
positions_limitNoMax positions in the delivered feed (default 15, max 500). The complete signed feed (all positions) is always at signed_feed_url.
positions_offsetNoPagination offset for positions.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: every response is signed, the standalone signed feed is at /official/{id}/candidate.json, and the tier ('rootz-compiled' vs 'candidate-signed') indicates verification status. This goes beyond the annotations and is crucial for trust decisions. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is three dense sentences that efficiently convey purpose, content, signing, URL, and tier. While slightly long, every sentence adds meaningful information and the key action is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, the exact data included, the signed nature, tier semantics, and the standalone URL. With no output schema, it offers enough detail for an agent to understand the expected response. It could have mentioned pagination behavior for positions_offset, but the schema handles that.

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%, with each parameter already documented clearly (id, expand, bioguide_id, positions_limit, positions_offset). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: a candidate's Campaign Data Standard (CDS) feed. It enumerates the feed's contents (identity, offices, positions with source links, voting record, data gaps), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like politics_positions or politics_official that focus on subsets.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: an AI or reporter uses this feed to grab and verify a candidate's positions. It implies the tool is for obtaining a complete, signed record in one request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools (e.g., politics_positions for just positions) or when not to use this feed.

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

All officials toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose covering different aspects of political data: bills (search, details, text slices, TOC), officials (details, search, by state, representation), bridge pages (create, compare, session, letter), and specialized queries (speeches, votes, positions, provenance). No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'politics_<descriptive_name>' pattern using snake_case. Verbs and nouns are combined logically (e.g., 'politics_bills_search', 'politics_candidate_feed'), with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

At 25 tools, the set is comprehensive for a political data API but slightly on the high side. However, each tool covers a specific niche (bills, officials, bridge pages, etc.), and the count is justified by the breadth of the domain. It remains manageable and well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers major data types (bills, officials, candidates, speeches, votes, positions) and interaction workflows (bridge pages, watchlists). Minor gaps exist, such as missing a direct 'politician by name and state' endpoint, but the search and filtering tools compensate. Overall, the set is thorough.

Resources