list_billsList Canadian Parliament bills from OpenParliament.ca, optionally filtered by parliament-session (e.g. "44-1"), sponsor politician slug, and status. Returns bill number, name, sponsor, and current status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| session | No | Parliament-session (e.g. "44-1") | |
| sponsor | No | Sponsor 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: +[
+ {
+ "session": "44-1"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 25,
+ "session": "44-1",
+ "sponsor": "justin-trudeau",
+ "status": "passed"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of bills with pagination",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover safety and idempotency. However, the description does not mention pagination behavior despite the presence of limit and offset parameters in the schema. It also omits details about data freshness or rate limits. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the lack of pagination clarification is a notable gap.
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 two sentences long, clear, and front-loaded with the key information. It provides necessary details without extraneous content. Could be slightly more concise by omitting 'from OpenParliament.ca' if that is redundant, but overall efficient.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters (0 required), an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description explains filters and return fields but misses pagination and status value constraints. With the output schema handling return values, the description is moderately complete but lacks some behavioral context.
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 description coverage is 40% (only session and sponsor have descriptions). The description adds meaning by listing the filterable parameters (session, sponsor, status) and what they do, but does not explain limit and offset or enumerate possible status values. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.
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 the verb 'List', the resource 'Canadian Parliament bills', and the source 'OpenParliament.ca'. It specifies optional filters (parliament-session, sponsor, status) and the return fields (bill number, name, sponsor, status), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bill (which likely retrieves a single bill) by being a list operation.
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?
The description mentions optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bill or search_debates. The usage context is implied (for listing bills with filters) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or when not 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.