Skip to main content
Glama

openfec-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Openfec Search Filings

openfec_search_filings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search FEC filings and reports by committee, candidate, form type, or date range. Covers financial reports (F3/F3P/F3X), statements of candidacy (F2), organizational filings (F1), 24-hour IE notices (F24), and amendments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-indexed).
cycleNoTwo-year election cycle (even year).
per_pageNoResults per page.
form_typeNoFEC form type. Common: F3 (House/Senate quarterly), F3P (Presidential), F3X (PAC/party), F24 (24-hour IE notice), F1 (statement of organization), F2 (statement of candidacy), F5 (IE by persons).
filer_nameNoFull-text filer name search.
is_amendedNoFilter to original or amended filings only.
most_recentNoOnly the most recent version (filters out superseded amendments).
report_typeNoReport type code. Common: Q1/Q2/Q3 (quarterly), YE (year-end), M3-M12 (monthly), 12G/12P/30G (pre/post election).
report_yearNoFiling year.
candidate_idNoAssociated candidate ID (e.g., P00003392). Get IDs from openfec_search_candidates results.
committee_idNoFiling committee ID (e.g., C00358796). Get IDs from openfec_search_committees results.
max_receipt_dateNoLatest FEC receipt date (YYYY-MM-DD).
min_receipt_dateNoEarliest date FEC received the filing (YYYY-MM-DD).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoGuidance when no filings matched — echoes filters and suggests how to broaden.
resultsNoFiling result set; one record per match.
paginationNoPage-based pagination metadata.
totalCountNoTotal matching filings 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, response structure, or side effects), but it also does not contradict the annotations. Given the high annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists relevant form types, all in a compact structure that is easy for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (13 optional parameters, rich schema, and an output schema), the description fully conveys the core purpose and scope. It mentions the key filter dimensions and example form types, while the schema and output schema handle the remaining details. Nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter has a description. The tool description broadly mentions filters but adds no extra detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., specific examples or relationships). The description is largely redundant with the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FEC filings and reports') with explicit filter dimensions (committee, candidate, form type, date range). It also lists concrete form types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other data types.

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 usage for filings and reports but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openfec_search_contributions or openfec_search_expenditures. The purpose is clear enough to infer, but no when-not or alternative selection is stated.

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