list_committee_meetingsCommittee meetings (with witnesses + evidence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| committee_slug | No | Committee slug filter |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "committee_slug": "finance",
+ "date_from": "2024-01-01",
+ "date_to": "2024-03-31",
+ "limit": 40
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of committee meetings with witnesses and evidence, with pagination",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, informing the agent of safety and non-destructiveness. The description adds that results include witnesses and evidence, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or ordering behavior.
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key point. It is acceptably concise but could include more useful detail without becoming verbose.
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 description lacks usage guidelines and parameter explanations. Although the output schema exists to cover return values, the overall context for a simple list tool is minimal and leaves gaps for an agent.
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 only 25% (only committee_slug has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from examples. No additional semantic context is provided.
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 title 'List Committee Meetings' clearly states the action and resource. The description adds 'with witnesses + evidence,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_committees, which list committees themselves. However, it could be more explicit about the verb.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_committees or search_debates. The context only implies usage when committee meetings with witnesses/evidence are needed, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.