list_votesList individual member votes (voteringar) for a parliamentary session and committee-report designation. Results nest under voteringlista.votering[]; each row has namn, parti, valkrets and rost (Ja/Nej/Avstår/Frånvarande).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rm | Yes | Session/riksmöte, e.g. "2023/24". Required. | |
| sz | No | Number of vote rows (default 50). | |
| bet | Yes | Designation (beteckning), e.g. "FiU1". Required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "bet": "FiU1",
+ "rm": "2023/24"
+ },
+ {
+ "bet": "SfU18",
+ "rm": "2024/25",
+ "sz": 100
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value by disclosing the response structure (nested under voteringlista.votering[]) and row-level fields (namn, parti, valkrets, rost) with allowed vote values, going beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by essential return structure. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description fully covers the return value structure and key fields. Combined with comprehensive parameter schema and safety annotations, the tool is well-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action (List), the resource (individual member votes/voteringar), and the scoping context (parliamentary session and committee-report designation). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_members and get_document.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when needing individual member votes for a specific rm and bet. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the specificity implies appropriate usage, so a 4 is warranted.
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.