Sök efter ledamöter i Riksdagen
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namn | No | Namn att söka efter (förnamn eller efternamn) | |
| page | No | Sida för paginering | |
| limit | No | Max antal resultat | |
| parti | No | Parti (t.ex. S, M, SD, V, MP, C, L, KD) | |
| status | No | Status (tjänstgörande, tjänstledig, etc.) | |
| valkrets | No | Valkrets | |
| intressent_id | No | Ledamots-ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, filtering options, return format, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. It is minimally transparent.
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 a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the core purpose and earns its place, though its brevity borders on under-specification.
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 seven optional filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits available filters, result handling, and comparisons with sibling tools, leaving a significant informational gap for the agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the schema fully documents parameter meanings. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ledamöter i Riksdagen' clearly states the tool's function: searching for members of the Riksdag, using the verb 'sök' and the resource 'ledamöter'. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ledamot or search_anforanden.
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 get_ledamot (single member retrieval) or search_anforanden (speeches). It does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.
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.