Openstates

Get Bill

get_bill

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single bill with full detail: versions, sponsorships, related/companion bills, actions, and votes. Pass the OpenStates ID (e.g., "ocd-bill/abc...") or a state/session/identifier triple.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`session`	No	Session ID (use with jurisdiction + identifier)
`identifier`	No	Bill identifier within the session (e.g., "AB-123")
`jurisdiction`	No	State code (use with session + identifier)
`openstates_id`	No	OpenStates bill ID (preferred, e.g., "ocd-bill/...")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Bill title
`votes`	No
`actions`	No
`chamber`	No	Chamber (upper/lower) or organization
`session`	No	Legislative session
`sources`	No	Source URLs
`subject`	No	Subject tags
`sponsors`	No
`versions`	No
`identifier`	No	Bill identifier
`jurisdiction`	No	State or jurisdiction name
`latest_action`	No	Description of latest action
`openstates_id`	No	OpenStates bill ID
`classification`	No	Bill type classifications
`openstates_url`	No	Link to OpenStates page
`latest_action_date`	No	Date of latest action

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by enumerating the contained data (versions, sponsorships, related/companion bills, actions, votes), which is not in the schema or annotations. However, it doesn't disclose edge behavior like outcomes when no parameters are supplied, which matters given no required fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to invoke it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential purpose and both valid input modes. It lacks explicit error/edge-case guidance but is otherwise sufficient for this simple retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter individually described. The description adds grouping semantics by explaining the 'state/session/identifier triple' relationship and ranking openstates_id as preferred, which goes beyond the schema's isolated property descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource ('a single bill') and the depth of detail ('full detail: versions, sponsorships, related/companion bills, actions, and votes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_bills, which searches rather than retrieves a single record.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states two ways to call the tool: 'Pass the OpenStates ID ... or a state/session/identifier triple.' It communicates the preferred method ('OpenStates ID') and the alternative, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to use one option over the other, leaving a minor gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Openstates tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

The tool set includes multiple pairs of nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage) that overlap heavily in purpose. Many tools also combine unrelated functions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right one without confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no discernible pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_bill), and even lengthy descriptive names (scan_competitor_ai_presence) are mixed. The naming style is chaotic and inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on OpenStates (state legislatures). Only a few tools (search_bills, get_bill, etc.) relate to the server's name, while the rest are tangentially related to data lookups, betting, or AI visibility, making the set bloated.

Completeness1/5

The server's core domain (state legislative data) is severely underserved: only about 5 tools cover bills and legislators, lacking basic CRUD operations like create, update, or delete. Many obvious operations (e.g., searching bills by subject, tracking votes) are missing, while unrelated tools dominate.

Get Bill

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources