Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Detalhar bloco parlamentar

senado_obter_bloco
Read-onlyIdempotent

Obtém detalhes de um bloco parlamentar específico pelo seu código. Retorna um objeto com codigo, nome, nomeApelido, dataCriacao, dataExtincao e partidos (array com sigla, nome, dataAdesao, dataDesligamento); dataExtincao é null para blocos vigentes. partidos é a composição HISTÓRICA: quem tem dataDesligamento preenchida já saiu do bloco (composição atual = dataDesligamento null). Obtenha o parâmetro codigo primeiro via senado_listar_blocos; código inexistente retorna erro ("Bloco parlamentar não encontrado").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codigoYesCódigo do bloco parlamentar

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: dataExtincao is null for active blocs, partidos is a historical composition where dataDesligamento indicates departure, and nonexistent codes return an error. 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?

Three sentences, all substantive: purpose, return semantics, and usage prerequisite/error behavior. No filler or repetition; the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter detail tool with strong annotations and an output schema, this description covers everything needed to call it correctly: input source, return fields, semantic interpretation of nullable fields, and error behavior.

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?

The schema already documents codigo with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where the code comes from (senado_listar_blocos) and what happens if an invalid code is used, justifying a 4.

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: 'Obtém detalhes de um bloco parlamentar específico pelo seu código.' This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like senado_listar_blocos and from other detail tools like senado_obter_comissao.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to obtain the codigo parameter first via senado_listar_blocos, which is strong workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives beyond the prerequisite, so it stops short of a 5.

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