analyze_g0v_by_department
Analysera dokument från Regeringskansliet (via g0v.se) per departement
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dateTo | No | Till datum (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| dateFrom | No | Från datum (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Riksdag & Regering MCP
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, return structure, pagination, rate limits, or what 'analyze' entails. The tool could be read-only, but this is not stated. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the resource and grouping.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence in Swedish. It wastes no words and quickly conveys the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, which slightly detracts from its structure as a complete specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only two optional date parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to provide more context about what the analysis returns, how 'by department' is determined, and how this differs from nearby tools. The description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively in selecting or invoking this tool.
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?
The input schema describes both parameters (dateFrom and dateTo) with date format hints, achieving 100% coverage. Therefore, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it also does not need to since the schema already covers them adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Analysera dokument från Regeringskansliet (via g0v.se) per departement'. This clearly identifies the tool's function as analyzing government documents grouped by department, and the name reinforces this. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the 'analysis', making it less precise than it could be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like search_regering, get_regering_document, and summarize_regering_document exist, but the description does not mention them or state any exclusions. The only implied usage is via the name (department-based analysis), but that is not sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools target specific data types (documents, speeches, votes, members), but there is notable overlap between similar fetch/search tools, such as get_dokument vs get_dokument_innehall, and search_dokument vs search_dokument_fulltext. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool for a task.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix Swedish and English inconsistently (e.g., get_betankanden vs get_dokument, get_regering_document vs get_g0v_document_content). Prefixes vary (get, search, fetch, list, batch, enhanced, analyze, summarize) without a clear pattern, making the set feel haphazard.
Tool Count2/5
With 32 tools, the server is heavy and likely overwhelms an agent. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., paginated fetch variants, multiple search methods), and the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range.
Completeness4/5
The server covers a wide range of Swedish government data: documents, members, votes, questions, reports, and calendars. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-vote retrieval or per-member document listing, but the core informational needs are well covered.