Skip to main content
Glama

NeoDemos

by io.github.NeoDemosHQ

beoordeel_tekst

Read-onlyIdempotent

Eén deterministische review-tool voor concept-teksten van een raadslid/fractiemedewerker. Geen LLM, geen DB, <10ms. Kies de modus via soort:

  • vragen — scherpt concept schriftelijke/mondelinge vragen aan: flagt suggestief/sturend, meervoudig, gesloten ja/nee, vage kwantoren, en ongefundeerde vragen + 'scherper'-suggestie.

  • notitie / commissienotitie / fractienotitie — sanity-review (maximaal 10 opmerkingen): ontbrekend voor/tegen-eindoordeel, strategische opstelling, bronnen zonder paginanummer, ontbrekende samenvatting/vragen/bolletjes en suggestieve vragen — gegroepeerd op ernst (hoog/midden/laag).

  • spreektekst — rubriek met cijfer (1-10) + deelscores + verbeterpunten + duur-vs-spreektijd (opening, standpunt, onderbouwing, weerlegging, oproep, lengte ~130 wpm).

  • RvO-format check: motie | motie_vreemd | amendement | schriftelijke_vragen | mondelinge_vragen | initiatiefvoorstel | interpellatieverzoek — valideert structuur + RvO-regels (ontbrekend dictum, geen raadsvoorstel-ref bij amendement, gesloten vragen bij schriftelijke vragen, etc.). Gebruik dit na genereer_raadsstuk of op een handgeschreven concept.

Gebruik wanneer: het raadslid een concept heeft geschreven en wil weten wat scherper kan. NIET om corpus te doorzoeken → zoek_raadshistorie.

Retourneert: markdown met concrete verbeterpunten passend bij soort, gegroepeerd op ernst.

Positie in de drafting-keten: roep aan ná genereer_raadsstuk; verwerk de bevindingen in het concept en sla daarna op met sla_fractie_artifact_op(artifact_type=<doc_type>).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
soortNovragen
tekstYes
spreektijd_secNo

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavioral traits: deterministic, no LLM/DB, <10ms, maximum 10 comments for sanity reviews, grouping by severity, and speaking-time comparison at ~130 wpm. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though fairly long, the description is dense and well-structured: summary line, mode list, usage guidance, return format, and workflow position. Every sentence adds operational value; the 'Positie in de drafting-keten' section is especially useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by specifying markdown output with concrete improvement points grouped by severity, plus mode-specific outputs (e.g., rubric with 1-10 score for spreektekst). It also covers when not to use and where it fits among siblings, making the tool fully actionable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it thoroughly explains the `soort` modes and their different outputs, clarifies `tekst` as the handwritten/generated concept text, and `spreektijd_sec` is covered by the spreektekst-mode explanation ('duur-vs-spreektijd ... ~130 wpm'). This exceeds schema value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Eén deterministische review-tool voor concept-teksten van een raadslid/fractiemedewerker.' It clearly distinguishes this review tool from drafting and search siblings by stating it is NOT for corpus searching (→ zoek_raadshistorie) and should be used after genereer_raadsstuk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is explicit: 'Gebruik wanneer: het raadslid een concept heeft geschreven en wil weten wat scherper kan. NIET om corpus te doorzoeken → zoek_raadshistorie.' It also provides workflow position: call after genereer_raadsstuk, process findings, then save with sla_fractie_artifact_op.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NeoDemos toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct primary function: advising on instruments, reviewing text, formatting citations, generating a memo, generating a council document, retrieving context, and gathering background data. However, adviseer_raadsinstrument and verzamel_context's instrument_doel option overlap in providing instrument advice, which could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Dutch (adviseer_, beoordeel_, formatteer_, genereer_, verzamel_), with one deviation: get_neodemos_context uses the English verb 'get' instead of the Dutch imperative, breaking the pattern slightly.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool serves a clear purpose in the council-member workflow, from advising and generating documents to reviewing and gathering context. No tool feels redundant or out of place.

Completeness2/5

The set covers drafting and reviewing but references essential missing tools (zoek_raadshistorie, zoek_moties, lijst_vergaderingen, mijn_fractie_context, sla_fractie_artifact_op). This creates dead ends, such as genereer_fractienotitie requiring meeting_ids from a tool that is not available, and no way to search existing documents or save generated artifacts.

Resources