Paginerad hämtning av anföranden
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | Riksmöte | |
| sok | No | Sökterm i anförande-text | |
| page | No | Sidnummer | |
| parti | No | Parti | |
| talare | No | Talarens namn | |
| fetchAll | No | Hämta alla sidor | |
| maxPages | No | Max antal sidor | |
| pageSize | No | Antal per sida |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's basic function. It does not explain pagination mechanics, filtering capabilities, fetchAll behavior, or the response format, leaving agents without critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, a single phrase is not appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It lacks information about return values, pagination behavior, filtering options, or any contextual details needed to use the tool effectively. No output schema exists to compensate for this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain how parameters like fetchAll, maxPages, or pageSize interact or relate to the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Paginerad hämtning av anföranden' is a direct Swedish translation of the tool name 'fetch_paginated_anforanden', essentially restating it. It provides no additional meaning or differentiation from sibling tools like search_anforanden.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search_anforanden, get_dokument, or any other sibling, nor does it provide any use-case context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.