Skip to main content
Glama
CDVolvik

pr-legislative-x402

by CDVolvik
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for legislation with filters, the other retrieves full details for a specific measure. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but one uses 'pr_bill' and the other 'pr_legislation,' which is a minor inconsistency in resource naming. Overall style is consistent and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin for a legislative domain, though it may be sufficient for a minimal read-only API. The count is borderline but not unreasonable.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers search and detail retrieval, which are the core operations for accessing legislative measures. No significant gaps are apparent, though more specialized endpoints (e.g., by chamber or session) could be added.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by listing what the full detail includes (abstract, sponsors, action history), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling for invalid identifiers, rate limits, or whether partial data can be returned. This is moderate transparency for a read-only lookup tool.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists the key return fields, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple one-parameter, get-by-id tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, what the parameter is, and what the response contains. However, it does not mention the sibling search tool, which could help an agent decide between the two, and there is no output schema to clarify return format. This is a minor gap for the simplicity of the tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%: the identifier parameter has a description with examples ('PC 456' or 'ps-123'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats 'by identifier'. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get full detail'), the specific resource ('one Puerto Rico legislative measure'), and the scope ('by identifier: abstract, sponsors, and action history'). This specific verb+resource+scope framing effectively distinguishes it from the sibling search tool, which is for searching legislation rather than retrieving full detail by ID.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search_pr_legislation. The description implies the tool is for retrieving full details by identifier, but it does not state that search should be used when an identifier is unknown, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. This lacks explicit usage context.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns summary rows,' which hints at the output form, but it does not disclose matching behavior, result ordering, or potential empty results. Since the tool is a read-only search, the risk is lower, but the description could add more context about what 'summary' entails. It is not misleading, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb 'Search' and quickly covers resource, criteria, and return type. Every phrase earns its place; there is zero redundancy or fluff.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given it is a straightforward search tool with four well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return format. It lacks guidance on when to use the sibling get_pr_bill, which would improve completeness, but the essential context for a search tool is present. The schema already covers parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it groups criteria as 'text, chamber, or status' but does not elaborate on the 'status' slug or provide examples. It does not increase understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool searches for Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly measures (proyectos y resoluciones) using specific criteria (text, chamber, status) and returns summary rows. This is a specific verb + resource + criteria, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling get_pr_bill by being a search/discovery tool rather than a fetch-by-ID tool.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description makes the search purpose clear but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling get_pr_bill. Usage is implied (search to find measures), but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations. This is adequate but lacks explicit direction.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

pr-legislative-x402 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

pr-legislative-x402 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CDVolvik/pr-legislative-x402'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server