Skip to main content
Glama

openfec-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Openfec Search Committees

openfec_search_committees
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find political committees (campaign, PAC, Super PAC, party) by name, type, candidate affiliation, or state. Retrieve a specific committee by FEC ID. Committee IDs start with C followed by exactly eight digits (e.g., C00358796).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoSearch-results page number (1-indexed). Defaults to 1 on the search path.
cycleNoTwo-year election cycle (even year).
partyNoThree-letter party code (e.g., DEM, REP).
queryNoFull-text committee name search.
stateNoTwo-letter state code.
per_pageNoSearch results per page. Defaults to 20 on the search path.
designationNoCommittee designation. A (authorized), B (lobbyist PAC), D (leadership PAC), J (joint fundraiser), P (principal campaign), U (unauthorized).
candidate_idNoFind committees linked to this candidate (authorized, leadership, joint fundraising). Get IDs from openfec_search_candidates results.
committee_idNoFEC committee ID: 'C' followed by exactly eight digits (e.g., C00358796). Get IDs from openfec_search_committees results. Returns a single committee with full detail.
committee_typeNoCommittee type code. Common: H (House), S (Senate), P (Presidential), O (Super PAC), N (PAC nonqualified), Q (PAC qualified), X (Party nonqualified), Y (Party qualified).
treasurer_nameNoFull-text treasurer name search.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoGuidance when no committees matched — echoes filters and suggests how to broaden.
committeesNoCommittee result set; one record per match.
paginationNoPage-based pagination metadata.
totalCountNoTotal matching committees before pagination.
search_criteriaNoEcho 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 read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds the FEC ID format and the exact-lookup mode, but does not describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or other runtime traits. There is no annotation contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary search capability, followed by the exact-lookup mode and the essential ID format. Every sentence contributes information with no filler.

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?

Combined with full parameter documentation, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a read-only search tool. The main remaining gap is lack of explicit routing between this and sibling search tools, though the clear resource naming partially mitigates this.

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% for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's FEC ID format note is useful but duplicates the committee_id parameter description, and the top-level text adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('political committees') and the actions ('Find...', 'Retrieve a specific committee by FEC ID'), with useful category examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools such as openfec_search_candidates, though the committee resource and FEC ID format make the target obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for committee lookups by name, type, state, candidate affiliation, or FEC ID, and the candidate_id schema text points to openfec_search_candidates for source IDs. However, the main description never states when to choose this over committee totals, candidate search, or other siblings, nor gives when-not-to-use conditions.

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 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
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.

Resources