get_billFetch full detail for a Canadian Parliament bill by session (e.g. "44-1") and bill number (e.g. "C-318") — returns title, sponsor, status, and legislative history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Bill number (e.g. "C-318") | |
| session | Yes | Session (e.g. "44-1") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "number": "C-318",
+ "session": "44-1"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Detailed bill information",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. Description adds return content details but no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes essential details, and contains no unnecessary words. Optimal conciseness.
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?
With output schema present, description need not detail return structure. It notes returned fields. Parameters fully covered by schema and description. Annotations cover behavioral aspects. The tool is simple but all needed info is provided.
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 100% with both parameters well-described. Description adds examples ('44-1', 'C-318') but these are already in schema examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly augment schema.
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 clearly states verb ('Fetch full detail') and resource ('Canadian Parliament bill'), specifies required inputs (session and bill number), and lists returned fields (title, sponsor, status, legislative history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bills or get_politician.
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?
Implies usage context (when a specific bill's details are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. Given clear sibling distinctions, the guidance is adequate.
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.
The tool set mixes two distinct domains: 8 Canadian Parliament tools and 30 Pipeworx data tools. Within each domain, tools are somewhat distinct, but the overall mix creates confusion as agents cannot tell if a tool is for parliament or general data lookup.
OpenParliament tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*), but Pipeworx tools use varied conventions (e.g., 'remember', 'discover_tools', 'ask_pipeworx'). The lack of a unified naming scheme across the set reduces predictability.
38 tools is excessive for a Canadian Parliament server. The core parliament tools (8) are well-scoped, but the addition of 30 unrelated Pipeworx tools makes the count bloated and inappropriate for the stated domain.
For the Canadian Parliament domain, coverage is adequate but lacks topic search and detailed legislative history. However, the server is dominated by Pipeworx tools, which are out of scope, making the overall surface severely incomplete for the implied purpose.