Sök efter anföranden
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | Riksmöte | |
| text | No | Text att söka i anförandet | |
| limit | No | Max antal resultat | |
| parti | No | Parti | |
| talare | No | Talare att söka efter | |
| debattnamn | No | Debattnamn |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Sök efter anföranden' only implies a read-only search, but does not mention pagination, result format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words and is technically concise, but it is under-specified. While there is no wasted text, the lack of structural detail or additional context makes it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a three-word description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain search semantics, result ordering, or pagination, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions like 'Riksmöte' and 'Text att söka i anförandet', so the description need not repeat them. However, the explanation adds no additional meaning beyond these brief parameter descriptions, and the parameter descriptions themselves are terse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sök efter anföranden' clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'anföranden' (speeches), which distinguishes it from generic document searches. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_dokument, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 search_dokument or search_dokument_fulltext. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.