get_betankanden
Senaste betänkandena
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| organ | No |
Riksdag & Regering MCP
TDQS
D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits. There are no annotations, and the description does not mention pagination, ordering, filtering, or any side effects. It is entirely silent on how the tool behaves or what it returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short ('Senaste betankandena'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure or a complete sentence, and while brevity is good, the absence of essential information makes it ineffective. It is more of a title than a description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description must compensate for this lack of structured information, but it does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, or when to use it. It is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (rm, limit, organ) with zero description coverage. The description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean, valid values, or how they affect results. The agent is left with no semantic information beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Senaste betankandena' translates to 'Latest committee reports', which restates the tool name ('get_betankanden') with an added 'latest' qualifier. It lacks a verb and does not clearly state that this tool retrieves a list of committee reports, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like list_reports or get_dokument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. It is merely a noun phrase with no instructional content.
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.