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). For a human bill number like HB 123, use jurisdiction="NC", identifier="HB 123"; bill_id is for UUIDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | No | ||
| session | No | ||
| identifier | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| include_full_text | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and lists returned record sections, but omits auth/permission needs, not-found behavior, pagination or rate limits, and the behavior of include_full_text.
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 three well-structured sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a useful lookup example with no wasted text.
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 or annotations, the description does a good job explaining the returned sections and the two lookup paths. It falls short only on include_full_text and error-side behavior.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains bill_id as a UUID, jurisdiction + identifier for human bill numbers, and optional session for disambiguation, but completely omits include_full_text, leaving one of five parameters undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full record for one bill'), then enumerates the returned components. It clearly distinguishes fetching a single bill from broader search/list tools like search_legislation.
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?
It gives clear conditions for choosing between bill_id (UUID) and jurisdiction + identifier, including a concrete example for a human bill number. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.
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.
