Fetch the full record for one bill: metadata, sponsors, subjects, actions, versions, and vote-event summaries. Look up by canonical bill_id (UUID), or by jurisdiction + identifier (+ optional session to disambiguate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | No | ||
| session | No | ||
| identifier | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| include_full_text | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as fetching data but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or any potential side effects. For a read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.
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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value with no 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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential lookup methods and return contents. It lacks details on response structure or pagination, but for a straightforward fetch tool, it is sufficient.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the lookup logic (bill_id vs. jurisdiction+identifier+session) and the optional disambiguation via session. The 'include_full_text' parameter is mentioned but not explained. Overall, adds significant value beyond the raw 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 it fetches the full record for one bill, listing components like sponsors, subjects, actions, versions, and vote-event summaries. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves a single bill's complete data.
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 indicates when to use the tool (when needing full bill record) and provides two lookup methods (by bill_id or by jurisdiction+identifier+session). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
