Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ParliamentOS – Bundestag, Landtage, Nationalrat, EU

by io.consiliumos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

EU-Scorecard

get_eu_scorecard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scorecard der EU-Fraktionen oder Länderdelegationen im Europaparlament (M-10): je Gruppe Ø Anwesenheitsquote (belegte Sitzungstage / Sitzungstage im Mandat), Ø Reden je MdEP, Ø Anfragen je MdEP und Mitgliederzahl — bei scope='fraktion' zusätzlich Ø Fraktionstreue — als sortiertes Ranking. Aggregiert dieselbe amtliche Datenbasis wie get_eu_accountability_score, aber mit ABSOLUTEN Mittelwerten je MdEP. Ausdrücklich eine NÄHERUNG, kein Leistungsurteil: Redezeit und Anfragerechte hängen von der Fraktionsgröße ab. [Ohne KI: liefert ausschließlich Originaldaten aus amtlichen Quellen.]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scope": "<scope>"
    },
    "name": "get_eu_scorecard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYes'fraktion' für den Vergleich der EU-Fraktionen, 'land' für den Vergleich der Länderdelegationen
sinceNoOptional: nur Sitzungstage/Reden/Anfragen ab diesem Datum (YYYY-MM-DD). Die Fraktionstreue bleibt Ganz-Mandats-Wert (Tagescache).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description still adds substantive context: that the numbers are an explicit approximation, not a performance judgment, and that speaking time and question rights depend on faction size. That methodological caveat is genuinely decision-relevant for how an agent should present results, though return shape and caching behavior are left implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The metric list is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one very long sentence plus bracketed boilerplate about 'Ohne KI', which adds bulk without helping tool selection. Readability suffers for a definition that is otherwise dense with signal.

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 only two fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the main gap would be output shape — and since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics and their ordering. It is nearly complete for this complexity, missing only aggregation-level details such as referencing the group key.

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 consequences beyond the schema: it tells the agent that scope='fraktion' unlocks the extra Fraktionstreue metric, which the parameter description alone does not imply. The 'since' parameter's effect is only echoed, not extended, hence not a 5.

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?

Names the resource precisely (Scorecard der EU-Fraktionen oder Länderdelegationen im Europaparlament) and enumerates the exact metrics produced (Ø Anwesenheitsquote, Ø Reden je MdEP, Ø Anfragen je MdEP, Mitgliederzahl, plus Fraktionstreue bei scope='fraktion') as a sorted ranking. An agent can tell exactly what comes back without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly positions itself against get_eu_accountability_score (same official data basis, but absolute mean values per MEP rather than whatever the sibling reports), which gives a real selection rule. It does not state any when-not case or prerequisite, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All ParliamentOS – Bundestag, Landtage, Nationalrat, EU toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources