Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Servidores do Senado

senado_servidores
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista servidores do Senado por situacao (ativos, efetivos, comissionados ou inativos), com filtros opcionais por nome, lotacao e cargo. Retorna { situacao, count, total, servidores[] }, cada item com nome, vinculo, situacao, cargo, funcao, lotacao, anoAdmissao etc. Aplica limite (padrão 50, máx 500) e inclui aviso quando há truncamento — refine os filtros. Também conta e lista TODOS os servidores de TODA a estrutura subordinada a uma diretoria/secretaria (não só a lotação direta), cruzando a lotação de cada servidor com o organograma até o nível de serviço: informe a unidade (sigla ou nome, ex.: 'DGER') em subordinadasA — use isso para 'quantas pessoas estão sob a Diretoria-Geral', pois filtrar lotacao pela sigla-mãe retorna 0 (os servidores ficam em serviços/núcleos subordinados). Nesse modo o retorno traz a unidade resolvida, o total (um piso), os servidores, as unidades não reconhecidas no organograma (naoClassificados, com nota explicativa) e os afastados/em trânsito (afastadosOuEmTransito); ao responder, verbalize esses conceitos em português corrente — não cite nomes de parâmetros ou campos. Para o organograma em si use senado_estrutura_organizacional; para remuneração use senado_remuneracoes_servidores.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomeNoNome do servidor (busca parcial)
cargoNoCargo (busca parcial)
limiteNoMáximo de resultados (padrão: 50)
lotacaoNoLotação/setor imediato (busca parcial, ex: SEGRAF). Para toda a estrutura subordinada a uma diretoria/secretaria, use `subordinadasA`.
situacaoNoQual lista consultar (padrão: ativos)ativos
subordinadasANoSigla ou nome de uma unidade (ex.: 'DGER', 'Diretoria-Geral'): conta/lista servidores de TODA a estrutura subordinada a ela (organograma até o nível de serviço), não só a lotação direta.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: truncation triggers an aviso, subordinadasA resolves the unit and returns a floor total, unrecognized units appear in naoClassificados, and absent/transit employees are reported separately. 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?

The description is long but information-dense; every sentence adds a distinct operational fact. It is front-loaded with the core list behavior and return shape, then expands into edge cases and cross-tool references. No filler is present.

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?

Given six parameters, two distinct query modes, and several edge cases, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return shape, limits, truncation, subordinate traversal, unrecognized units, absent employees, and alternative tools. The output schema and annotations cover the remaining safety and return details.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond schema names. It explains partial-search semantics, the default/maximum limite, the distinction between lotacao and subordinadasA, and gives a concrete example ('DGER') with expected behavior.

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: 'Lista servidores do Senado' and immediately scopes the operation by situacao, with optional filters by nome, lotacao, and cargo. It also differentiates the tool from nearby siblings by explicitly naming when to use senado_estrutura_organizacional and senado_remuneracoes_servidores instead.

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 gives explicit usage context, including when to use the subordinadasA mode ('quantas pessoas estão sob a Diretoria-Geral') and warns that filtering lotacao by the parent acronym returns 0. It also states clear alternatives for organizational structure and compensation lookups.

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