get_motioner
Senaste motionerna
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Senaste motionerna' is merely a noun phrase and reveals nothing about whether this is a read operation, what it returns, pagination, or any side effects. This is as sparse as the 'Process' example that scored 1.
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 brief, but brevity without substance is under-specification. Two words do not constitute a structured explanation, and the description fails to earn its place by omitting essential information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and overall behavior. It does neither. The tool is effectively opaque, providing no way for an agent to know what to expect or how to invoke it correctly.
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 does not compensate. 'rm' and 'limit' remain unexplained. The agent cannot infer their meaning or how they affect results. No baseline is possible since parameters exist and are undocumented.
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 motionerna' (Latest motions) identifies a resource but lacks an explicit verb or action. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_interpellationer or get_propositioner, which also target document types. A clearer phrasing like 'Fetch the latest motions' would improve clarity.
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?
No usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of optional parameters. An agent has no guidance on selecting this tool.
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.