Skip to main content
Glama

NeoDemos

by io.github.NeoDemosHQ

formatteer_bronvermelding

Read-onlyIdempotent

Formatteert een bronvermelding zoals Erik die wil: mét paginanummer (en, indien bekend, alinea) — bijv. '(Begroting 2025, 12-10-2024, p. 41, alinea 3)'. Met spreker + quote levert de tool de volledige citaat-attributie in huisstijl: 'Volgens {spreker} ({partij}): "..." (bron, p. ..)'. Velden die ontbreken worden netjes weggelaten (nooit 'p. None'). Geen DB, geen netwerk.

Let op: paginanummers vereisen dat de paginametadata in het bronfragment aanwezig is (aanwezig bij sommige bronnen, afwezig bij andere — de tool degradeert netjes). Zin-/alinea-precisie op corpusniveau is aparte ontologie (WS30); deze tool is de formatteerlaag.

Gebruik wanneer: je een quote of bron netjes wilt vermelden met paginanummer/alinea.

Retourneert: de bronvermelding/citaat-string (markdown).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bronYes
datumNo
quoteNo
alineaNo
paginaNo
partijNo
sprekerNo
document_idNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Geen DB, geen netwerk' (no DB/network), missing fields are omitted cleanly ('nooit p. None'), graceful degradation when page metadata is absent, and a specified markdown return format. These details go beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Every sentence adds value: main function, special case for spreker+quote, missing-field behavior, metadata caveat, usage guidance, and return type. The structure front-loads the purpose and is well-organized without fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return format, and important caveats like page metadata dependency. However, the undocumented document_id and lack of a full parameter breakdown leave a minor completeness gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the spreker+quote combination and provides an example showing date, page, and paragraph, while stating that missing fields are omitted. However, not all parameters (e.g., document_id) are explained, leaving a gap for that field.

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 begins with a specific action: 'Formatteert een bronvermelding' (formats a citation) in a particular style, and distinguishes itself as 'de formatteerlaag' (the formatting layer) versus the separate corpus ontology (WS30). Sibling tools are for content generation and context, making this formatting tool's purpose clear and distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states 'Gebruik wanneer: je een quote of bron netjes wilt vermelden met paginanummer/alinea' (use when you want to properly cite a quote or source with page/paragraph). It also notes that corpus-level precision is a separate ontology (WS30), providing a when-not. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, only implies separation.

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