list_politiciansCurrent + historic MPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name fragment | |
| limit | No | ||
| party | No | Party slug | |
| offset | No | ||
| current | No | Only currently sitting (default true) | |
| province | No | Province code (e.g. "ON") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "current": true,
+ "party": "liberal"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "name": "Smith",
+ "province": "ON"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of current and historic Members of Parliament 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, covering safety and mutability. The description adds that it returns 'current + historic' MPs, which is a useful behavioral detail not in annotations. It does not contradict 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 short sentence, highly concise with no redundant information. However, it may be too terse—it does not elaborate on important aspects like pagination or default filters. It earns its place by stating the core function but could be slightly more informative.
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 presence of 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain pagination (limit, offset) or default filtering behavior. It is minimally complete but lacks details that would help an agent use the tool effectively without relying on the schema alone.
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 67%; some parameters (limit, offset) lack descriptions. The description does not explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. For parameters with descriptions (name, party, current, province), the tool description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Current + historic MPs' clearly indicates the resource (MPs) and scope (current and historic), distinguishing it from single-item tools like get_politician and other listing tools. However, it omits an explicit verb like 'list', relying on the tool name, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_politician, search_debates, or list_bills. The description lacks any context for when this tool is appropriate or when to prefer other tools.
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.