get_politicianFetch a Canadian MP profile from OpenParliament.ca by politician slug — returns name, party, riding, province, election history, and links to their debate contributions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Politician slug |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "slug": "justin-trudeau"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Politician profile details",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (name, party, riding, etc.) and links to debate contributions, which are behavioral details beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and lists return fields concisely. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the low complexity (one required param, good annotations, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers functionality. It lists return fields and source, though it could mention potential errors or case sensitivity. Still, it is complete enough for the scenario.
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?
The only parameter is 'slug' with schema description 'Politician slug', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reiterates 'by politician slug' but does not add new semantic meaning or format details beyond the 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?
The description clearly states it fetches a Canadian MP profile by slug from OpenParliament.ca, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from list_politicians (list) and get_bill (different entity).
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?
It specifies the tool is used with a politician slug, implying single-entity lookup. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_politicians, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
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.