Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Análise de consultas públicas

senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analisa o conjunto completo de consultas públicas abertas (matérias em tramitação) do e-Cidadania por grau de concordância cidadã, conforme modo: consenso → consultas com alta concentração de votos numa direção, ordenadas da maior para a menor concentração; usa percentualMinimo (padrão 85%). polarizada → consultas com votação equilibrada (~50/50), ordenadas da menor para a maior diferença sim/não; usa margemPolarizacao (padrão 15 pontos). Analisa por padrão consultas aberta (opinião pública atual). Quando a matéria sai de tramitação a consulta passa a encerrada, então status: "encerrada"/"todas" cobrem o conjunto que foi encerrado desde a ingestão (cresce com o tempo); fechadas antes da 1ª carga não são capturadas. Todos os modos aceitam minimoVotos (padrão 1000) e limite (padrão 10). Retorna { modo, criterio, count, consultas }. É esta a ferramenta para 'consultas mais votadas', ranking ou panorama ATUAL da votação das consultas em tramitação — não confundir com senado_ecidadania_consultas_votos, que é o acervo HISTÓRICO (matérias já arquivadas) com quebra por UF. Para o detalhe de uma consulta use senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modoNoconsenso (alta concordância) ou polarizada (~50/50)consenso
limiteNoNúmero máximo de resultados
statusNoRecorte do conjunto (padrão: aberta = opinião atual). encerrada cobre consultas que saíram de tramitação desde a ingestão (cresce com o tempo); fechadas antes da 1ª carga não são capturadas.aberta
minimoVotosNoMínimo de votos para considerar
percentualMinimoNoModo consenso: percentual mínimo numa direção
margemPolarizacaoNoModo polarizada: considera polarizado se diferença ≤ este percentual

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description carries a lower safety burden and instead adds rich behavioral context: per-mode ordering rules, status semantics, the ingest-boundary limitation for 'encerrada', defaults, and the return shape. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mode behavior, status caveat, defaults, return shape, and sibling routing. Formatting with bold, inline code, and arrows keeps it scannable, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the details.

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?

For a six-parameter read-only analytics tool with an output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It covers input semantics, defaults, temporal edge cases, return structure, and correct sibling routing. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond field descriptions: it explains what consenso vs. polarizada actually compute, how each mode orders results, which threshold parameter applies to which mode, and that minimoVotos and limite apply across all modes. This is considerably more than the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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: it 'Analisa o conjunto completo de consultas públicas abertas... do e-Cidadania por grau de concordância cidadã'. It precisely names the two operating modes and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools senado_ecidadania_consultas_votos (historical) and senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta (detail), making selection unambiguous.

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?

The description states exactly when to use this tool: 'É esta a ferramenta para consultas mais votadas, ranking ou panorama ATUAL...'. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'não confundir com senado_ecidadania_consultas_votos', and routes detail lookups to a sibling. The status lifecycle caveat ('fechadas antes da 1ª carga não são capturadas') further clarifies appropriate usage.

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