Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Resultado de veto

senado_resultado_veto
Read-onlyIdempotent

Obtém o resultado da apreciação de um veto presidencial. Retorna { codigo, tipo, resultado }, onde resultado é o objeto bruto da API (sem wrappers), com campos variáveis — tipicamente identificação do veto, situação por dispositivo (ex.: "Rejeitado"/"Mantido") e link do PDF do resultado nominal (PdfsResultadoVotacao). A API não fornece placar numérico (sim/não) aqui — o detalhamento nominal está no PDF; vem objeto vazio quando o veto ainda não foi votado e retorna erro se o codigo não existir. tipo define o que codigo representa: veto (código do veto, padrão), materia (código do projeto vetado) ou dispositivo (dispositivo de veto parcial) — as três chaves apontam para o mesmo veto. Obtenha o código via senado_vetos. Para listar vetos (não o resultado de um) use senado_vetos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tipoNoDefine a chave em codigo: veto = código do veto (padrão); materia = código do projeto vetado; dispositivo = dispositivo de veto parcialveto
codigoYesCódigo do veto, da matéria vetada ou do dispositivo — qual deles depende de `tipo`

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), the description adds crucial edge-case behavior: empty object when the veto hasn't been voted, error when the code doesn't exist, no numeric tally available, raw unwrapped shape, and PDF link for nominal detail. This is exactly the kind of disclosure that prevents an agent from misinterpreting an empty or unexpected response.

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 but well-structured: purpose, return shape, critical caveats, parameter semantics, and sibling routing each earn their place. The most important gotchas (no numeric score, empty object, error) are front-loaded. It is longer than average, but the information density justifies the length.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what the result looks like, edge cases, parameter semantics, and where to obtain the code. It even preempts the assumption that a numeric tally exists. No material gap remains.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: the three `tipo` keys (veto, materia, dispositivo) all point to the same veto, and the prose clarifies what `codigo` represents depending on `tipo`. It reinforces the schema without merely repeating it.

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 resultado da apreciação de um veto presidencial'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from senado_vetos, which is for listing rather than retrieving a single result. The title 'Resultado de veto' aligns perfectly with the stated function.

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 routing: 'Obtenha o código via senado_vetos' and 'Para listar vetos (não o resultado de um) use senado_vetos'. This tells the agent when to use this tool, when not to, and names the alternative. The explanation of the three `tipo` variants also clarifies which code to supply in which situation.

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