get_propositioner
Senaste propositionerna
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | ||
| limit | No |
Riksdag & Regering MCP
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to disclose safety or side effects, and the description provides no behavioral details. It does not explain what 'senaste' means (e.g., ordering by date, default limit), whether filtering by 'rm' is supported, or what the response contains. The tool name and description imply a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 short, which is concise, but it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence with a verb. It conveys the core purpose but omits necessary context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, parameter effects, default behaviors, or any limitations, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 mention either parameter ('rm' or 'limit'). The schema provides only type constraints (string, number with min/max), leaving the semantics of both parameters completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for this gap.
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 'Senaste propositionerna' (Latest propositions) clearly identifies the resource (propositions) and the scope (latest), which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_motioner and get_betankanden. However, it lacks a verb indicating the action (e.g., fetch, list), relying on the tool name 'get_' to convey the operation.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools, such as get_motioner or get_interpellationer, nor any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the appropriate choice.
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.