Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Detalhar norma legal

senado_obter_legislacao
Read-onlyIdempotent

Obtém o detalhe de uma norma federal já promulgada pelo seu codigo interno. Somente leitura, sem efeitos colaterais; consulta ao vivo à base oficial de dados abertos. Retorna um objeto com codigo, tipo, descricaoTipo, numero, ano, data (ISO AAAA-MM-DD), norma, apelido, ementa, indexacao (termos temáticos) e url do texto integral — campos ausentes na norma vêm null, e codigo inexistente retorna erro "Norma não encontrada", não um objeto vazio. Obtenha o codigo antes via senado_buscar_legislacao (é o identificador interno da norma, não o número da lei). Para localizar normas por tipo/número/ano use senado_buscar_legislacao; esta serve só para o detalhe de uma norma já identificada.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codigoYesIdentificador interno da norma no acervo do Senado (inteiro > 0) — o campo `codigo` retornado por senado_buscar_legislacao. Não confundir com o número da lei: a Lei n. 14.133/2021 tem numero=14133, mas seu codigo interno é outro valor.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Somente leitura, sem efeitos colaterais.' It adds extra value by disclosing that the data is a live query to the official open-data base, that missing fields return null, and that nonexistent codes return the exact error 'Norma não encontrada' rather than an empty object.

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 front-loaded with the core action and every sentence contributes useful information: read-only guarantee, return shape, null/error behavior, and routing to the sibling search tool. It is somewhat dense as a single paragraph, but there is no wasted material.

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?

With only one required parameter, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description still goes further to explain the prerequisite for obtaining `codigo`, the exact not-found behavior, and how missing fields are represented. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of the single parameter, including its integer type, exclusiveminimum, and the warning not to confuse `codigo` with the law number. The description repeats this guidance, notably the distinction between `codigo` and the number of the law, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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: 'Obtém o detalhe de uma norma federal já promulgada pelo seu codigo interno.' It clearly differentiates itself from senado_buscar_legislacao by stating this tool is only for detail of an already identified norma, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says to obtain `codigo` first via `senado_buscar_legislacao`, and that norms should be located by tipo/número/ano using that sibling tool. It also states this tool is only for detail of an already identified norma, giving clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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