Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Discursos de um senador

senado_discursos_senador
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista pronunciamentos de um senador, filtráveis por período e casa. tipo (padrão discursos) alterna entre discursos (falas próprias) e apartes (intervenções em falas de outros) — muda a fonte upstream e o conteúdo, mantendo a mesma estrutura. Retorna { codigoSenador, tipo, count, discursos } sem paginação (count 0 e lista vazia quando não há pronunciamentos no período), cada item com codigo, data, casa, tipoUsoPalavra, resumo, indexacao, url e nomeParlamentar — sem o texto integral. ATENÇÃO: para tipo=discursos, omitir dataInicio/dataFim faz a fonte retornar SOMENTE os últimos 30 dias (frequentemente vazio) — para o histórico, informe o período explícito (ex.: desde o início do mandato); apenas apartes traz o histórico completo sem período. Obtenha o codigoSenador via senado_listar_senadores e o texto completo em senado_discurso_texto (campo codigo). Para discursos de todos os senadores num período use senado_discursos_plenario, não esta.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
casaNoRestringe à casa: SF (Senado Federal) ou CN (Congresso Nacional); vazio traz ambas
tipoNodiscursos = pronunciamentos próprios (padrão); apartes = intervenções em discursos de outros — altera a fonte e o conteúdo retornadodiscursos
dataFimNoFim do período (YYYYMMDD); para tipo=discursos, omitir o período limita a resposta aos últimos 30 dias
dataInicioNoInício do período (YYYYMMDD); use junto com dataFim. Para tipo=discursos, sem período a fonte retorna só os últimos 30 dias
codigoSenadorYesCódigo único do senador

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: no pagination, count=0 with empty list semantics, items lacking full text, and the upstream source's 30-day restriction when date range is omitted. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but well-structured: purpose, return shape, a prominent ATTENTION caveat, and cross-references to sibling tools. It is longer than minimal, but each sentence carries operational value and the key warning is front-loaded with caps.

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?

Given the complexity of the period/tipo interaction, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return fields, empty-result behavior, no-pagination rule, missing full text, how to obtain required identifier, and where to go for alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful interplay semantics: how tipo changes the upstream source and content, and how omitting dataInicio/dataFim affects discursos vs apartes. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 ('Lista pronunciamentos de um senador'), then explicitly disambiguates from sibling tools: it says to use senado_discursos_plenario for all senators and senado_discurso_texto for full text. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: get codigoSenador via senado_listar_senadores, get full text via senado_discurso_texto, and use senado_discursos_plenario for all senators. It also warns about the 30-day default for discursos and specifies when apartes gives full history without a period.

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

All Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools perform overlapping functions (e.g., senado_buscar_materias vs senado_search_processos, senado_contratos vs senado_contratacoes_lista, and three e-cidadania consultation tools). Although descriptions are detailed, an agent can easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the 'senado_' prefix, but the pattern is inconsistent: some use Portuguese verbs (buscar, listar, obter), others English 'search', and some are bare nouns (senado_ceaps, senado_mesa, senado_vetos). This mixed convention reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

67 tools is far above the 25 threshold, indicating an overgrown surface. While each tool may serve a niche endpoint, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to choose efficiently, and many tools could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers nearly every aspect of Senate open data (legislative, senatorial, committee, administrative, financial, e-cidadania) with list/detail/searches. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct consolidated contract search, but most workflows can be achieved.

Resources