Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Detalhar reunião de comissão

senado_reuniao_comissao
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detalha uma reunião de comissão pelo codigoReuniao. Retorna um objeto com codigo, titulo, comissao, data, hora, local, situacao, realizada, secreta, tipoPresenca (presencial/semipresencial), presidente, links urlPauta/urlResultado/urlAta e partes (cada parte com evento e itens apreciados: identificacao, ementa, autoria, relatoria, resultado, codigoMateria). A API NÃO publica lista de presença da reunião (só presidente e eventuais convidados): reconstrua a presença pelos votos nominais (senado_votacao_comissao), por quem falou na transcrição (senado_notas_taquigraficas com tipo=reuniao) ou pela ata oficial (urlAta, quando publicada). Obtenha o codigoReuniao em senado_agenda_comissoes ou senado_reunioes_comissao.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codigoReuniaoYesCódigo da reunião (campo 'codigo' na agenda de comissões)

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a key limitation: the API does not publish the meeting attendance list and explains how to reconstruct presence via votação, transcrição, or ata. This is valuable behavioral context not present in 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 well organized into three purposeful sentences, but the first sentence is long and partly duplicates what the output schema already describes. It is still dense and readable, with the most important caveat front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 one clearly documented parameter, a strong output schema, safety annotations, and explicit guidance on predecessors and fallback tools, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 documents codigoReuniao at 100% coverage, including the hint that it comes from the agenda. The description repeats the lookup source but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Detalha uma reunião de comissão pelo codigoReuniao'. It also enumerates the returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from list/agenda siblings like senado_reunioes_comissao and senado_agenda_comissoes.

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 explicitly tells the agent where to get codigoReuniao (senado_agenda_comissoes or senado_reunioes_comissao) and where to reconstruct attendance data when this API cannot provide it. This is clear when-to-use and alternative-routing 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