Sök efter voteringar och röster
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | No | Riksmöte | |
| bet | No | Beteckning | |
| iid | No | Ledamots-ID | |
| rost | No | Röst (Ja, Nej, Avstår, Frånvarande) | |
| avser | No | Vad voteringen avser | |
| limit | No | ||
| parti | No | Parti | |
| punkt | No | Punkt | |
| groupBy | No | Vill du gruppera resultatet? | |
| valkrets | No | Valkrets |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention grouping behavior, limit handling, filtering semantics, or any other operational traits. The groupBy parameter in the schema hints at behavior, but the description itself discloses nothing beyond the basic activity.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no fluff. It is efficient and easy to parse, though arguably too terse to be fully 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?
This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description provides only a basic purpose and does not explain how to build queries, what grouping does, or what to expect in the response. The schema covers parameter names but not the overall usage context, leaving a significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 90%, so the input schema already explains most parameters. The tool description adds no parameter information, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 voteringar och röster' clearly states the action (search) and the resource (voting records and votes). It communicates the tool's purpose effectively, though it does not differentiate it from sibling search tools like search_dokument or search_anforanden beyond the resource name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of typical use cases, and no exclusions or alternative tool pointers. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other search_* tools.
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.