Full-text search over bill text, titles, and the labeled summaries. A bare bill number is a direct lookup. Search matches the words of the document: ask in the words the bill would use. in_headings searches only titles, topic tags, and subjects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| session | No | ||
| in_headings | 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by noting that search matches document words and that in_headings restricts to titles/topics/subjects. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or how results are ordered.
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?
Two sentences with purpose front-loaded, then a query nuance and a parameter hint. No filler, each sentence 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?
For a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to start but leaves limit/session semantics and result structure undefined. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
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 explain parameters. It only covers in_headings; limit and session remain unexplained, and the query parameter is only given phrasing advice rather than format or meaning.
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?
States it performs full-text search over bill text, titles, and labeled summaries, and clarifies direct lookup for bare bill numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bills_lookup or bills_get_text by emphasizing the full-text scope.
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?
Provides guidance on query phrasing ('ask in the words the bill would use') and describes the in_headings behavior, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The hint about bare bill numbers implies direct lookup, but no sibling exclusions are given.
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.