plenary_documentsPlenary documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | ||
| type | No | e.g. "REPORT", "MOTION_FOR_RESOLUTION" | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 25,
+ "term": 10,
+ "type": "REPORT"
+ },
+ {
+ "offset": 0,
+ "type": "MOTION_FOR_RESOLUTION"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Plenary documents from EU Parliament API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral details (e.g., pagination, ordering, scope). It fails to leverage the opportunity to provide additional context.
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?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It omits key information that should be present for a 4-parameter tool.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to contextualize the tool's role within the plenary documents domain. With no required parameters and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection.
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 only 25% (only 'type' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters (term, limit, offset) or their expected values, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
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?
Description 'Plenary documents' is vague; it restates the name without specifying an action (e.g., list, search) or differentiating from sibling tools. Examples in schema imply retrieval, but the description alone is insufficient.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
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.