us-lobbying-mcp-server

Uslobbying Get Contributions

uslobbying_get_contributions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete semiannual LD-203 reports, contributions, PAC relationships and certifications, preserving original and amended reports. Child predicates must match the same item; full parent contribution lists and matched_item_indexes remain available. Report counts are not donation counts and no cross-report donation total is inferred.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payee`	No	Case-insensitive literal payee substring.
`cursor`	No	Continue the original scope; other query fields may be omitted.
`honoree`	No	Case-insensitive literal honoree substring.
`max_pages`	No	Source pages per call; positive integers clamp to five, default one for discovery, five for analysis.
`page_size`	No	Upstream rows per page; positive integers clamp to 25, default 25.
`amount_max`	No	Inclusive local same-item maximum exact decimal USD; complete parent lists remain available.
`amount_min`	No	Inclusive local same-item minimum exact decimal USD; complete parent lists remain available.
`contributor`	No	Case-insensitive literal contributor substring.
`filing_year`	No	Required first-call reporting year, 2008 through current UTC year.
`lobbyist_id`	No	Lobbyist filer ID.
`record_path`	No	JSON Pointer to a stored value; empty selects the root.
`record_limit`	No	Maximum object entries or array items, clamped to 25; text fragments use the response byte budget.
`filing_period`	No	Semiannual period.
`lobbyist_name`	No	Lobbyist name upstream search.
`record_handle`	No	Tenant/tool-bound deferred record handle.
`record_offset`	No	Key, item or Unicode-code-point offset.
`registrant_id`	No	Registrant ID.
`registrant_name`	No	Registrant name upstream search.
`contribution_type`	No	Official feca, he, me, ple or pic payment code.
`contribution_date_after`	No	Inclusive earliest item calendar date.
`contribution_date_before`	No	Inclusive latest item calendar date.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present when the call failed. Absent on success.
`offset`	No	Final record delivery offset.
`source`	No	Official source system.
`notices`	No	Limitations and success notices.
`reports`	No	Full parent reports and complete child lists.
`coverage`	No	Acquisition progress, independent of delivery.
`truncated`	No	More of the parent value remains available through record windows.
`attribution`	No	Required verbatim attribution for LDA data.
`next_cursor`	No	Next acquisition or output window cursor.
`retrieved_at`	No	Retrieval ISO timestamp.
`record_window`	No	Lossless stored parent window.
`total_records`	No	Exact final record count when known.
`record_handles`	No	Deferred complete parents.
`retrieval_tool`	No	Tool that retrieves this parent.
`delivery_limits`	No	Clamped controls for this call; an empty map means no clamp. Immediate cursor replay retains its original values.
`output_complete`	No	Whether all result rows have been delivered.
`amendment_policy`	No	Amendments remain separate reports.
`records_deferred`	No	Oversized parents available through handles.
`records_returned`	No	Complete records delivered in this window.
`cursor_expires_at`	No	Continuation expiry ISO timestamp.
`effective_filters`	No	Normalized effective scope.
`item_count_in_batch`	No	Items in returned complete parent lists.
`snapshot_source_urls`	No	Official snapshot URLs.
`report_count_in_batch`	No	Complete parent reports returned.
`snapshot_retrieved_at`	No	FARA snapshot retrieval timestamp.
`snapshot_last_modified`	No	Upstream Last-Modified header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: original and amended reports are preserved, child predicates must match the same item, matched_item_indexes and full parent lists remain available, and report counts are not donation counts with no cross-report totals inferred. That last point is a meaningful anti-misinterpretation warning not encoded anywhere in 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, item-matching rule, and counting caveat. Front-loaded with what is retrieved; 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?

With 21 fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description supplies the remaining semantic guardrails (amendments, item-level matching, donation-vs-report counting). It does not explain pagination/cursor interaction with max_pages across calls, which is the main residual gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces the 'same item' semantics of the amount predicates and the availability of parent lists, which the schema descriptions largely repeat. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve complete semiannual LD-203 reports, contributions, PAC relationships and certifications'), which is clearly distinct from search_filings or get_issue_spending. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast with one, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (LD-203 contribution retrieval) and the caveats steer interpretation, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance against the eight sibling tools. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over search_filings for a given question.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All us-lobbying-mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.