Eu Parliament

Session Calendar

session_calendar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Session calendar.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "term": 10,
      "year": 2024
    },
    "name": "session_calendar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`term`	No
`year`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "term": 10,
+    "year": 2024
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Session calendar/meetings from EU Parliament API",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 18, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is structured. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or any side effects. Minimal value added.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise but underspecified. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing useful information. It is not appropriately sized—a useful description would require more content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description offers zero context about what the tool does, when to use it, or how it differs from siblings like 'mep' or 'plenary_documents'. The tool's existence is entirely unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. However, the description ('Session calendar.') gives no meaning to 'term' or 'year'. These could be academic terms, financial quarters, etc. The agent cannot infer what values to provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a tautology: 'Session calendar.' restates the tool name without specifying any action (e.g., fetch, list, view) or what session calendar it refers to. It provides no discernible purpose beyond the name itself.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 siblings. No context about prerequisites, scope, or alternatives is provided. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool.

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

All Eu Parliament 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.