Skip to main content
Glama

officials

by global.rootz.politics

Policy Positions by Topic

politics_positions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Policy positions across officials by topic, covering who supports or opposes issues such as crypto, stablecoins, AI, healthcare, and guns. Each position carries a source URL and origin hash. Returns compact records by default (id, name, party, state, stance, summary, source) with a total count; the compact parameter controls row detail and offset controls paging.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results per page. Compact: default 100, max 250. Full: default 25, max 50.
partyNoFilter by party (Republican, Democrat)
stateNoFilter by state (2-letter code)
topicYesPolicy topic label — use exact stored labels: Cryptocurrency, Technology, Healthcare, Immigration, Climate, Gun Control, Abortion, Taxes, Economy, Education, National Security, Housing, Criminal Justice, Social Security, Voting Rights, Agriculture, Trade
offsetNoPagination offset. Response includes total; page by offset += limit.
compactNoCompact mode (default). Small bounded record per position; use with offset to page. Set false for full rows (limit capped at 50).

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: compact records by default, inclusion of source URL and origin hash, total count, and pagination behavior via compact and offset. This gives the agent a good understanding of what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then succinctly covering output format and pagination. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the compact record fields, total count, and pagination mechanics. It does not detail full-row fields, but the 'compact parameter controls row detail' hint is sufficient for a tool with a manageable parameter set. The main limitations are lack of explicit sibling differentiation and full-row field details.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are already detailed (topic labels, limit defaults, offset pagination, compact mode). The description reinforces the role of compact and offset but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing policy positions across officials by topic, with specific example topics (crypto, stablecoins, AI, healthcare, guns). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on officials' stances on issues rather than bills, speeches, or individual official details.

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 implies the use case—finding who supports or opposes an issue—and mentions the topic-based filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like politics_search or politics_bills_search, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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