List the current members of the Chamber of Deputies with party, constituency, start of mandate and official email.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_deputies"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional name, party or constituency filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does imply a read-only listing and discloses the fields returned (party, constituency, mandate start, email), which is useful. However it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or auth requirements for a members list that could be large.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and returned fields are stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-required-param list tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields covers the main return-value gap. Minor omissions remain around ordering and whether the list is paginated or complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a name/party/constituency filter. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (current members of the Chamber of Deputies) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent can distinguish it from get_commune_leaders or get_plenary_votes. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_chamber_bodies, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'current'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.