Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Orçamento parlamentar (emendas)

senado_orcamento_parlamentar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Emendas parlamentares ao orçamento da União, conforme tipo (padrão emendas). tipo: emendas (proposição) → { tipo, count, emendas }, cada item (lote de emendas de um autor) com autor, codigoAutor, quantidadeEmendas, anoExecucao, materia (peça orçamentária, p.ex. LOA 29/2023), tipoPl, dataOperacao e ativo. tipo: oficios (execução — indicação de destino de emendas já aprovadas) → { tipo, ano, count, total, aviso?, oficios }, cada ofício com id, autor, protocolo, dataInclusao e quantidadeEmendas; filtre pelo ano do orçamento da emenda (recomendado — a base cobre vários anos), pagine com limite/pagina, e use incluirEmendas: true para o detalhe de cada emenda (favorecido, CNPJ, órgão, nota de empenho). Nota: no modo oficios, o ofício é o documento de execução que indica o destino do recurso de uma emenda já aprovada (posterior à proposição); a data do ofício difere do ano do orçamento. Para a execução do orçamento interno do próprio Senado (despesas/receitas) use senado_execucao_orcamentaria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoNoAno do orçamento da emenda (filtra tipo=oficios pelo ano das emendas)
tipoNoemendas (lotes de emendas propostas) ou oficios (ofícios de indicação de destino)emendas
limiteNoMáximo de ofícios por página (tipo=oficios; padrão 50)
paginaNoPágina de ofícios (tipo=oficios; padrão 1)
incluirEmendasNotipo=oficios: incluir o detalhe das emendas (favorecido, CNPJ, nota de empenho)

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 declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: the difference between proposição and execution documents, the fact that the ofício date differs from the budget year, the optional `aviso?` field, and the expansion behavior of `incluirEmendas`. 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 and free of fluff, front-loading the `tipo` duality before optional details. It loses one point because it is structured as one long paragraph with nested clauses; bullet points or short labeled sections would make it easier for an agent to scan.

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 two-mode tool with five parameters, the description covers mode-specific response shapes, the `ano` caveat, pagination, optional emenda details, and the sibling alternative. With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, nothing needed 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%, and the description still adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why filtering by `ano` is recommended, clarifies that `limite`/`pagina` apply to the `oficios` mode, and describes what `incluirEmendas: true` adds to the response. This is practical invocation knowledge, not just schema restatement.

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 identifies the resource (emendas parlamentares ao orçamento da União) and clearly distinguishes the two modes: `tipo: emendas` (propositions) and `tipo: oficios` (execution). It also explicitly separates this tool from `senado_execucao_orcamentaria`, so the agent can select it correctly.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: filter by `ano` because the base covers multiple years, use `limite`/`pagina` for pagination, and use `incluirEmendas: true` for detailed emendas. It also names the sibling tool that should be used for internal Senate budget execution, providing a clear when-to-use vs. alternative.

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