get_dokument_innehall
Hämta dokumentinnehåll och sammanfattning
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dok_id | Yes | Dokument ID | |
| include_full_text | No |
Riksdag & Regering MCP
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions 'content and summary' but fails to explain key behaviors such as the default exclusion of full text (since 'include_full_text' defaults to false), what the summary entails, or error handling. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
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 description is extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. A single phrase without additional structure or context is not appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, leaving the agent without essential details.
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?
The tool has only two parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not address what 'summary' means, how to request full content, the return format, or any limitations. Given the many overlapping sibling tools, this description is insufficient for reliable tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain either parameter. While the schema describes 'dok_id' as 'Dokument ID', 'include_full_text' lacks a description, and the tool description does not clarify its meaning or effect. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no compensatory detail.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves document content and summary ('Hämta dokumentinnehåll och sammanfattning'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_dokument' or 'get_g0v_document_content', which may perform similar functions.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning any use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to similar sibling tools such as 'fetch_paginated_documents' or 'search_dokument'.
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.