Skip to main content
Glama

Nosdeputes Fr

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search Questions

search_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search written or oral questions submitted by French Assemblée nationale deputies, filtered by free-text query, deputy slug, and question type (ecrite, orale, au gouvernement). Returns question title, deputy, date, and type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoecrite | orale | au gouvernement
limitNo
queryNo
deputy_slugNo
legislatureNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "fiscalité"
+  },
+  {
+    "deputy_slug": "emmanuel-macron",
+    "limit": 10,
+    "query": "santé",
+    "type": "ecrite"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "questions": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "date": {
+            "description": "Question date (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Question identifier",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "ministre": {
+            "description": "Minister addressed",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "nom_complet": {
+            "description": "Full name of questioner",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "parlementaire": {
+            "description": "Deputy slug",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "resume": {
+            "description": "Question text excerpt",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "statut": {
+            "description": "Status (posee, repondue, etc)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "titre": {
+            "description": "Question title/summary",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "description": "Question type (ecrite/orale/au gouvernement)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "description": "Full URL to question",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by listing the returned fields (title, deputy, date, type) and the available filters, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists filters and return fields. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it searches, what filters apply, and what it returns. It omits minor details like pagination (related to 'limit') and the meaning of 'legislature', but these are secondary and partially recoverable from the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'type' has a description). The description compensates for three key parameters—query, deputy_slug, and type—by explicitly mentioning them as filters. However, 'limit' and 'legislature' are not explained, and the description does not cover them, leaving a gap for an agent unfamiliar with these terms.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'written or oral questions submitted by French Assemblée nationale deputies'. It also specifies the key filters (free-text query, deputy slug, question type), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_interventions or suggest_questions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: searching parliamentary questions by specific filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it over siblings without confusion.

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