The bills of a session (the newest when session is omitted), in number order, 25 a page: id, title, status, URL. Filter by kind (hb, sb, hr, sr), chamber (H or S), LegiScan status code, a caption subject (a headings search), or words q.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| chamber | No | ||
| session | No | ||
| subject | 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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior: newest-when-session-omitted, number ordering, 25-a-page, and subject being a heading search. It doesn't mention pagination mechanics beyond start/limit or rate limits, so a 3 fits.
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?
One dense sentence front-loads the core behavior (session, ordering, page size) and then lists filters compactly. There is no filler, tautology, or repetition of the tool name.
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?
For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: default session, ordering, page size, pagination params, and filter domains. The only missing elements are an example of a LegiScan status code and explicit pagination continuation behavior, but these are minor for a list call.
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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: it names q, kind, chamber, status, subject, session, limit, and start, and explains the value domains for kind, chamber, status, and subject. Minor gap: q is described as 'words' but exact matching semantics are not clarified.
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 states a specific verb+resource: lists bills of a session, with ordering and page size. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `bills_search` by emphasizing a paged list in number order rather than search, and it enumerates filters.
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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you want a paged list of bills in a session, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with `bills_search` is strongly implied by the sibling names and the deliberate 'list' framing.
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.