list_membersList current members of the Riksdag (ledamöter), optionally filtered by party and/or constituency. Results nest under personlista.person[] with Swedish fields (parti, valkrets, efternamn, tilltalsnamn).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kn | No | Constituency name (valkrets), e.g. "Stockholms län". | |
| parti | No | Party abbreviation, e.g. S, M, SD, C, V, KD, L, MP. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "parti": "S"
+ },
+ {
+ "kn": "Stockholms län",
+ "parti": "M"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the response nesting structure (personlista.person[]) and Swedish field names, which is helpful context beyond the safety profile. 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful response structure note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and result shape. It mentions the nesting path and key fields, though it omits potential details like pagination or result size limits, which are not critical for this list operation.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions and examples for both parameters (kn and parti), covering 100% of parameters. The description only restates that filtering is optional, adding no new semantic detail 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 the tool lists current Riksdag members with optional filters for party and constituency. The verb 'List' and the specific resource (Riksdag members) distinguish it from sibling tools like list_votes and list_subscriptions.
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 implies usage when one needs current Riksdag members and mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools (e.g., search_documents or entity_profile).
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.