openfec-mcp-server

Openfec Lookup Elections

openfec_lookup_elections

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up federal election races and candidate financial summaries. Find who's running in a race with fundraising totals, or get an aggregate race summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zip`	No	ZIP code — finds races covering this ZIP. Search mode only.
`mode`	No	search = candidates in a race with financial totals. summary = aggregate race financial summary.	search
`page`	No	Page number (1-indexed). Search mode only; explicit page is rejected in summary mode. Defaults to 1 for search.
`cycle`	Yes	Election cycle year (even years only, e.g. 2024).
`state`	No	Two-letter US state code (e.g., AZ, CA). Required for senate/house unless zip is provided.
`office`	Yes	Office sought: H=House, S=Senate, P=President.
`district`	No	Two-digit district number (e.g. "07"). Required for house unless zip is provided.
`per_page`	No	Results per page. Search mode only; defaults to 20.
`election_full`	No	Expand to full election period (4yr president, 6yr senate, 2yr house). Defaults to true when omitted; a ZIP-scoped search rejects it, since that endpoint has no such parameter. Carries no schema default, so an explicit value is distinguishable from an omission.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	Query mode as the server resolved it. Row shapes differ by mode — search rows are per-candidate financial records, summary is one aggregate race row — so read this rather than inferring the shape from the fields present.
`error`	No	Present when the call failed. Absent on success.
`notice`	No	Guidance when no election results matched — echoes filters and suggests how to broaden.
`results`	No	Election race result set; candidate financial rows in search mode, a single aggregate summary row in summary mode.
`pagination`	No	Page-based pagination metadata.
`totalCount`	No	Total matching candidates or race summaries.
`search_criteria`	No	Echo of the search filters this call applied, as the server parsed them, minus paging arguments. Always present — compare it against what you sent to confirm every filter was honoured.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context by distinguishing candidate-level fundraising results from aggregate race summaries, but it does not disclose mode-specific behavioral details such as rejection of election_full in ZIP searches; those are left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the purpose and the second expands on the two output modes. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema with 100% parameter coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description only needs to orient the agent to the tool's purpose and modes. It does that well, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond naming the two modes, and the schema already documents ZIP, state, district, and pagination constraints adequately.

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?

States a specific action ('look up') and resource ('federal election races and candidate financial summaries'), then clarifies the two modes: finding candidates with fundraising totals or getting aggregate race summaries. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools focused on candidates, committees, or filings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings such as openfec_search_candidates or openfec_get_committee_totals. It implies race-level use but provides no exclusions or 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 openfec-mcp-server tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct FEC resource or action, and even closely related tools are explicitly differentiated. Independent versus coordinated expenditures and legal search versus legal document retrieval are described in enough detail that an agent should not misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools share the openfec_ prefix and follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern: get for direct retrieval, lookup for calendar/election lookups, and search for queryable datasets. The naming is highly consistent across the full tool set.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well-scoped for a campaign-finance data server covering candidates, committees, money flows, filings, legal documents, calendar, and elections. Each tool represents a meaningful slice of the domain without unnecessary overlap or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core FEC workflows thoroughly: candidates, committees, contributions, disbursements, independent and coordinated expenditures, filings, legal documents, calendar, and elections. The only notable gaps are specialized FEC categories such as electioneering communications and communication costs, which are not exposed.

Openfec Lookup Elections

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources