Get FEC campaign finance data for federal election candidates. Returns fundraising totals, cash on hand, and spending by office (President/Senate/House), state, or party.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Candidate name search | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 50) | |
| party | No | DEM, REP, IND | |
| state | No | 2-letter state code (TX, CA, NY) | |
| office | No | P=President, S=Senate, H=House | |
| election_year | No | Election cycle year (default: 2026) | 2026 |
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns fundraising totals, cash on hand, and spending, which is good. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by key details. No extraneous words, every 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers filtering options and data types. However, it could mention that name is a search parameter and that limit has a maximum, but these are in the schema. Overall, it is fairly complete.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the tool returns (fundraising totals, cash on hand, spending) and how filters relate to that output. This extra context justifies a higher score.
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 gets FEC campaign finance data for federal election candidates and specifies the returned data (fundraising totals, cash on hand, spending) and filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings like get_fec_donors and get_fec_spending by focusing on candidates.
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 implies usage for candidate finance data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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 targets a distinct aspect of campaign finance: candidates, donors, and spending. There is no overlap, and an agent can easily distinguish between them.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'get_fec_<noun>', using camelCase with underscores. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 3 tools, the server is well-scoped to the three main pillars of campaign finance data. No tools seem extraneous or missing for basic queries.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of campaign finance: candidate summaries, donor contributions, and spending (both independent and direct). While committee details are absent, the set is complete for its intended purpose.