Fetch vote event(s) with member-level (yes/no/other/absent) vote records. Provide vote_event_id for one vote, or bill_id for all recorded votes on that bill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | No | ||
| vote_event_id | 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 full burden. It discloses the core behavior (fetching vote records) and parameter logic, but lacks detail on authorization, rate limits, or what happens if both parameters are null.
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, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second specifies parameter usage. Front-loaded and efficient.
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's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral aspects. However, it omits what happens if both parameters are provided, and could briefly note the typical output structure.
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 clearly explains the roles of bill_id and vote_event_id, including that providing one gives different results. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's names and types.
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 fetches vote event(s) with member-level vote records. It specifies the two usage patterns (by vote_event_id or by bill_id), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_bill_record or trace_legislative_history.
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 provides guidance on when to use each parameter (vote_event_id for one vote, bill_id for all votes on a bill), but does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools or advise when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
