Paginerad hämtning av dokument
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | Riksmöte (t.ex. 2024/25) | |
| sok | No | Sökterm | |
| page | No | Sidnummer (1-indexerad) | |
| doktyp | No | Dokumenttyp (mot, prop, bet, etc.) | |
| fetchAll | No | Hämta alla sidor (varning: kan vara långsamt!) | |
| maxPages | No | Max antal sidor att hämta om fetchAll=true | |
| pageSize | No | Antal resultat per sida |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination but does not explain return format, performance implications (e.g., fetchAll slowness), or how results are ordered. The schema hints at these but the description itself is uninformative.
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 extremely short and directly to the point. However, it is more of a label than a structured sentence, and for a tool with seven parameters and complex pagination behavior, it feels underspecified rather than efficiently concise.
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?
With no output schema and many sibling tools, the description should clarify what this tool does and what it returns. It merely restates the tool's name in Swedish, providing no context about data scope, filters, or result structure. This is inadequate for correct tool selection.
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?
Schema parameter descriptions provide 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, but the schema is thorough, so no deduction is needed.
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 'Paginated retrieval of documents' clearly states the verb and resource, and the pagination aspect is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like batch_fetch_documents or search_dokument, which also deal with document retrieval.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_fetch_documents or search_dokument. The description is a single phrase with no context about appropriate scenarios.
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.