Skip to main content
Glama

Senate Lobbying

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Filings

search_filings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search US Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings — federal lobbying disclosures showing who is lobbying the US government, for which client, on what issues, and for how much. Lobbying FIRMS/registrants report income (what the client paid them); IN-HOUSE lobbyists report expenses (what they spent on their own lobbying). Provide at least one filter. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueNoTopic to match against each filing's specific lobbying-issue description. Either a phrase ("drug pricing", "semiconductor tariffs") or a general issue area code from list_issue_codes ("TAX", "HCR", "DEF"), which is resolved to its official name before searching. Matches filings that DESCRIBE this topic, which is close to but not identical with the area code a filing is filed under.
limitNoMax results, default 10, max 25.
client_nameNoClient name — who hired the lobbyist, e.g. "Google", "Pfizer". Partial match.
filing_typeNoOptional filing type code, e.g. "Q1"/"Q2"/"Q3"/"Q4" (quarterly reports), "RR" (registration). Use to narrow to a specific period/form.
filing_yearNoFiling year, e.g. 2024.
registrant_nameNoLobbying firm / registrant name, e.g. "akin", "Brownstein". Partial match.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds 'Keyless' and the income vs expenses distinction, providing behavioral and domain context not in annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence adds essential domain distinction (income vs expenses) without redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description provides essential domain context and a usage requirement. It does not describe output format, but with no output schema and clear search semantics, it is adequately complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. It adds overall context about filtering and the data model but no per-parameter details beyond schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as searching US Senate LDA filings, with specific verb and resource. It explains the domain (lobbying disclosures, income vs expenses) and distinguishes from siblings like get_filing and list_issue_codes by focusing on search.

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?

It provides clear context (search LDA filings) and explicitly requires at least one filter, guiding usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool list and domain context make intended use clear.

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

All Senate Lobbying toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly described as currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data; the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in purpose and are easy to confuse. Even detailed descriptions do not fully resolve which tool an agent should pick first.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes, resolve_entity), but there is a mix of verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and brand-prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The naming is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

A server named 'Senate Lobbying' exposes 34 tools, but only three (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes) relate to LDA lobbying data. The remaining 31 cover generic Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm package audits—an extreme overreach for the apparent scope and likely to confuse an agent expecting a focused lobbying toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For the lobbying domain implied by the server name, only search, get-one-filing, and issue-code enumeration exist; there is no aggregation/stats tool, no lobbyist/client entity resolution for LDA, no registrant or foreign-entity browsing, and no coverage of related concepts like lobbying firm hierarchies or spending trends. The generic Pipeworx tools fill a different domain, so the lobbying-specific surface has significant gaps.

Resources