Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Tabelas de referência do plenário

senado_tabelas_plenario
Read-onlyIdempotent

Consulta tabelas de referência do plenário para resolver códigos/domínios, conforme tabela: tipos-sessao (espécies de sessão plenária), tipos-comparecimento (situações de presença) ou legislaturas (períodos legislativos com datas). Retorna { tabela, count, total, linhas } — count é o nº após o corte por limite e total o disponível; count < total indica truncagem (aumente limite); count 0 quando o filtro não casa. Cada linha traz o código/sigla e a descrição do domínio (campos conforme a API). Use para interpretar campos como tipo de senado_agenda_plenario/senado_resultado_plenario. Para tabelas do processo legislativo (assuntos, classes, situações) use senado_tabelas_processo. Ex.: { tabela: 'legislaturas' } ou { tabela: 'tipos-sessao', filtro: 'deliberativa' }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filtroNoBusca textual sobre qualquer campo da linha; count 0 se nada casar
limiteNoMáximo de linhas (padrão 100, máx 500); count < total sinaliza corte
tabelaYesDomínio a consultar: tipos-sessao (espécies de sessão); tipos-comparecimento (situações de presença); legislaturas (períodos com datas)

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the exact response shape, truncation semantics with 'count < total' meaning data was cut off, and that 'count 0' signals no match. This is useful, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 dense but organized: purpose first, then table enumeration, response semantics, usage guidance, alternative tool, and examples. Every sentence contributes distinct information and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Complete for this tool's complexity: it covers purpose, all domain options, response shape, truncation/filter edge cases, usage context, alternative tools, and examples. Since an output schema exists, the lack of detailed field-level return documentation is acceptable.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying 'limite' to truncation detection, clarifying what a zero 'count' means for 'filtro', expanding the meaning of each 'tabela' value, and providing sample invocations showing valid combinations. That is practical guidance beyond the raw 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 clear verb and resource: 'Consulta tabelas de referência do plenário para resolver códigos/domínios'. It then enumerates the exact tables allowed and explicitly differentiates this tool from senado_tabelas_processo, so an agent can distinguish it from related lookup tools without opening the schema.

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: use this tool to interpret fields like 'tipo' in senado_agenda_plenario/senado_resultado_plenario. It also states the exclusions and alternative: 'Para tabelas do processo legislativo ... use senado_tabelas_processo'. Concrete examples further guide selection and invocation.

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