The stored text of a bill alone, windowed by start and max_chars (default 60,000), with a pointer to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill | Yes | ||
| start | No | ||
| session | No | ||
| max_chars | 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?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the response is windowed by start and max_chars, has a 60,000-character default, and includes a continuation pointer. It does not explain the pointer format, but the added windowing/pagination context is useful.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; the key return type, windowing behavior, default, and continuation mechanism are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is a reasonable but incomplete specification. It covers the core text-windowing behavior but omits what the continuation pointer looks like, how bill/session should be supplied, and what exact response shape to expect.
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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain start and max_chars, including the 60,000 default, but it leaves bill and session unexplained. This is partial compensation, not complete coverage of the four parameters.
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 identifies the tool as returning the stored text of a bill, which distinguishes it from list/search/lookup siblings even though no sibling is named. It lacks an explicit verb but the tool name and noun-phrase description make the operation unambiguous.
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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bills_lookup, bills_search, or bills_list. There is only an implicit sense that it is for retrieving bill text; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are provided.
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.
Each tool has a unique and clearly defined purpose, separated by collection (bills, code, opinions, constitution) and action (list, lookup, search, get_text, browse, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of collection_action (e.g., bills_list, code_search, opinions_lookup) with snake_case and descriptive verbs. General tools use clear single-word names like search, fetch, and verify_quote.
With 23 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical 3โ15 range, but it is appropriate for a comprehensive legal database covering multiple collections and specialized operations (browse, describe, find, verify). The count is justified by the domain's breadth.
The tool set covers all major legal collections (bills, code, constitution, opinions) with CRUD-like operations (list, lookup, search, get_text) and includes cross-cutting utilities (search, fetch, verify_quote, describe_site, get_coverage). No obvious gaps in the expected functionality.