Skip to main content
Glama

Nosdeputes Fr

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Groups

list_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Political groups in the assembly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
legislatureNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "abrev": {
+            "description": "Group acronym (e.g. RE, LFI-NUPES)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "couleur": {
+            "description": "Group color code",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Group identifier",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "nom": {
+            "description": "Full group name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "nombre_deputes": {
+            "description": "Number of members",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "slug": {
+            "description": "Group URL slug",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url_assemblee": {
+            "description": "Official Assemblée group URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url_nosdeputes": {
+            "description": "Full NosDéputés group URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context, such as pagination, filtering behavior, or what the open-world hint means in practice. It does not contradict annotations but also provides no additional transparency beyond the 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.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short at five words, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a concise, well-structured statement. It under-specifies the tool and lacks a clear subject-verb-object structure. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a very simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not state the tool's core purpose explicitly, what political groups are, what the output contains, or how the legislature parameter affects the returned data. The annotations and output schema mitigate some gaps, but the description alone is not sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The 'legislature' parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what it does, what format is expected (e.g., ID vs name), or how it filters results. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the meaning and usage remain ambiguous without explicit documentation.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Political groups in the assembly' is a fragment that names a resource but lacks a verb. It does not explicitly state that the tool lists or retrieves groups, relying on the tool name for the action. It provides some context (political, assembly) but is vague and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like list_deputies.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply names the resource without explaining how it fits into a workflow or when it should be preferred over other list tools.

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

All Nosdeputes Fr 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