get_interpellationer
Interpellationer
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | ||
| limit | No |
Riksdag & Regering MCP
TDQS
D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses nothing: no mention of side effects, return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or the fact that this is a read operation. The agent cannot infer any behavioral traits beyond the name itself.
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 concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only a single word and conveys no actionable information; it does not front-load any useful content and fails to earn its place as a tool 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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about behavior, expected output, or parameter semantics. This is wholly inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the need to distinguish it from many similar sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. 'rm' remains completely unexplained, and 'limit' only has numeric constraints from the schema. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it impossible to know what these parameters represent.
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 'Interpellationer' is a one-word noun that simply names the resource rather than stating an action. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., fetch, list, search) and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools like get_fragor or get_motioner, making it effectively a tautology of the name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_fragor, get_motioner, or search_anforanden. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support.
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.