Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Votos em consultas por UF

senado_ecidadania_consultas_votos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Acervo histórico de votos das consultas públicas do e-Cidadania, com quebra por UF (fonte: CSV Arquimedes; ~15 mil matérias, atualizado semanalmente). Use apenas quando o pedido for pelo acervo/arquivo histórico ou por votos por estado (UF); para 'consultas mais votadas', ranking ou opinião ATUAL das consultas em tramitação use senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise. Diferente de senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas (consultas em tramitação): aqui o conjunto é o arquivo de matérias já consultadas — status vem como Descontinuado no arquivo de origem, por isso é tratado como acervo, não como opinião atual. Retorna { count, referencePeriod, consultas }, cada item com id, materia, ementa, autoria, votosSim/votosNao/totalVotos, votosPorUf ({ UF: { sim, nao } }) e url. Use ordenarPor (total/sim/nao, padrão total) e ordem para ranking; uf para recortar e ranquear por aquele estado (só matérias com votos na UF, e cada item ganha recorteUf); materia para filtrar por código (numérico) ou trecho do nome/ementa; limite (padrão 20).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoSigla da UF (ex.: SP) — filtra e ranqueia por votos daquele estado
ordemNoOrdem (padrão desc)desc
limiteNoNúmero máximo de resultados
materiaNoFiltro por código da matéria (numérico) ou trecho do nome/ementa
ordenarPorNoMétrica do ranking (padrão: total de votos)total

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: source data is a CSV, updated weekly, treated as an archive with 'Descontinuado' status, not as current opinion. This helps the agent set correct expectations beyond the structured 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?

The description is dense but each sentence serves a purpose: scope, sibling differentiation, semantic status, return shape, and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and not padded with filler.

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 read-only, optionally-parameterized tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all relevant aspects: when to use, what differentiates it, the return contract, parameter semantics, and data provenance. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'uf' filters and re-ranks only materials with votes in that state and that each item gains 'recorteUf', which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the combined filter behavior of 'materia'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a historical archive of e-Cidadania public consultation votes, broken down by UF. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise' and 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas', so an agent can identify the intended use without guessing.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use apenas quando o pedido for pelo acervo/arquivo histórico ou por votos por estado') and names the exact alternative for current rankings/opinions. It also contrasts the archive with the in-progress consultations tool, removing ambiguity.

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