Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

edgrapi-skills

by io.github.paperandbeyond23-gif
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get federal lobbying disclosures (LDA.gov)

get_lobbying
Read-onlyIdempotent

Federal lobbying registrations and quarterly reports from LDA.gov, newest first. Each filing carries the client who paid, the lobbying firm, income or expenses, issue codes and specific issues lobbied, government bodies contacted, the individual lobbyists, and the filing link. Use it to see who is lobbying on a company's behalf or on an issue.

Tool call template

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_lobbying"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, 25 filings per page (default 1).
yearNoFiling year, e.g. 2026.
issueNoText search in specific issues, e.g. 'artificial intelligence'.
clientNoClient name, e.g. 'Lockheed Martin'.
periodNoq1, q2, q3, q4, mid_year or year_end.
lobbyistNoIndividual lobbyist name.
registrantNoLobbying firm or in-house filer name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the newest-first ordering; it says nothing about pagination limits beyond the schema, coverage gaps in LDA.gov data, or rate limits — modest value on top of structured fields.

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, front-loaded with source and ordering, then payload contents, then the intended use. Every sentence adds information and none repeats the tool name or title.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload (client, firm, income/expenses, issue codes, agencies, lobbyists, filing link). All seven parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema. It could say more about result volume or empty-result behavior, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, with each of the seven optional filters documented in the schema itself (page size, year format, period values, example names). The description only gestures at the client and issue filters through its use-case sentence, adding no syntax or matching-behavior detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 verb and resource ('Federal lobbying registrations and quarterly reports from LDA.gov') plus the ordering ('newest first'). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_congress or get_awards, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit use case: 'see who is lobbying on a company's behalf or on an issue,' which maps to the client and issue parameters. It does not name a when-not condition or point at an alternative tool, so it stops short of the top band.

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

All edgrapi-skills toolsInspect
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.

Resources