get_sync_status
Visa enklare status för datakällor
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Riksdag & Regering MCP
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'show status' without revealing whether it is read-only, what the status contains, whether it triggers any actions, or what the response format is. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 and contains no filler, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. The phrasing 'visa enklare status' is awkward and could be more direct. While it is not verbose, it lacks the substance needed for adequate communication.
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?
Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description must clarify what the tool actually returns or what 'status' means. It does not explain what 'datakällor' refers to or what a 'simpler status' entails. The invocation is trivial due to no parameters, but the tool's output and meaning remain underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description is not required to explain parameters. The lack of parameters is clearly indicated in the schema, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'visa' (show) and the resource 'datakällor' (data sources), indicating it displays status. However, 'enklare status' (simpler/simplified status) is vague and does not clearly specify what aspect of status is shown or how it is simplified. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings, though no sibling directly overlaps.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The reader is left to infer that it is a status-check tool, but there is no explicit direction.
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.