list_pollsList recorded parliamentary votes/polls (Abstimmungen) with their title and date. Optionally scope to a single legislative period via period_id (a parliament-period id). Returns most recent polls first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 10). | |
| period_id | No | Optional parliament-period (legislature) id to filter polls. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "period_id": 23
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, constructiveHint. Description adds ordering ('most recent first'), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then optional parameter, then ordering. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description mentions return fields (title, date) but no output schema exists. For a simple list tool with annotations, this is complete enough. Could mention pagination behavior but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, period_id) are already described in schema. Description repeats period_id but adds no new semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb (List) and resource (parliamentary votes/polls) with specific attributes (title, date). No sibling tool duplicates this function, so it's distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions optional filtering by period_id, giving clear context for use. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives, though none exist among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.