Skip to main content
Glama

Congress

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Recent Bills

get_recent_bills
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the most recent congressional bills — newest first by introduction date or by latest action. This tool takes NO subject or keyword: it returns whatever Congress touched most recently, so it can only answer OPEN-ENDED recency questions — "what bills were introduced this week", "latest bills in Congress", "what is Congress working on now", "recent activity on bills". PREFER OVER congress_search_bills for exactly those (it ranks by keyword relevance and surfaces older bills). If the question NAMES a bill, act, or subject — "status of the NDAA", "the defense authorization bill", "bills about crypto" — use congress_search_bills instead, even when it asks for the CURRENT status: a named subject cannot be found in an unfiltered recency list, which is mostly routine post-office namings. Returns bill type, number, title, status, sponsor, and dates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNoRecency basis: "introduced" (default, newest introductions) or "activity" (most recent status change / latest action).
limitNoNumber of bills to return (default: 20, max: 100)
congressNoCongress number to filter by (e.g., 119 for 2025–2026). Omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "by": "introduced"
+  },
+  {
+    "by": "activity",
+    "congress": 119,
+    "limit": 30
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool takes no subject/keyword, only handles open-ended recency queries, and discloses the caveat that results are 'mostly routine post-office namings' — going beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the core action, then constraints, usage examples, alternatives, and return fields. Every sentence adds information, and the ALL-CAPS emphasis on 'NO', 'OPEN-ENDED', and 'PREFER OVER' helps an agent parse key distinctions quickly. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields ('bill type, number, title, status, sponsor, and dates') and thoroughly explains the tool's limitations and selection criteria. For a simple list tool with 3 optional params, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with 100% description coverage, including clear explanations for 'by', 'limit', and 'congress'. The description restates the 'by' concept in prose ('by introduction date or by latest action') but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the most recent congressional bills' and clarifies the ordering ('newest first by introduction date or by latest action'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from congress_search_bills, so the purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage guidance: it names concrete question types meant for this tool ('what bills were introduced this week', 'latest bills in Congress') and gives a clear exclusion case ('If the question NAMES a bill...'). It also explicitly recommends congress_search_bills as the alternative for named subjects, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use highly actionable.

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

All Congress 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same functional space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_ipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; disover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending all serve discovery; and five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research overlap heavily on prediction-market opportunity detection. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries are subtle enough that an agent can easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is uniformly lowercase snake_case and uses recognizable prefixes such as ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_, and get_, which makes the naming fairly predictable. It is not a strict verb_noun convention — some names are noun phrases like entity_profile or ai_visility_check — but the overall style is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the surface is far heavier than the 'Congress' name suggests: only five tools are actually about congressional data, while the rest are general research, memory, subscription, and meta utilities. Many of these overlap, so the count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

For Congress-specific work, the core needs are covered: search bills, get bill details, list members, and retrieve recent votes. However, deeper legislative operations like member voting records, committee actions, and amendments are missing, and the surrounding Pipeworx tools do nothing to close that gap. As a general data-research platform it is broad, but its actual 'Congress' identity feels incompletely realized.

Resources