va-lis-mcp

get_bill_vote_tallies

A bill's votes with their tallies and no members, in two requests.

Instructions

A bill's votes with their tallies and no members, in two requests.

The fast route to how a bill fared at each stage: committee, subcommittee, and floor votes from both chambers, oldest first. It is lighter than get_bill_votes and it knows less. Most voice votes are missing, there is no pass or fail flag (read description and tally), and a block vote does not say how many bills it covered. An empty list can mean the bill was decided by voice votes alone. referred_to names the committee a vote sent the bill on to. Pass a vote_id to get_roll_call for the members.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bill_number": "<bill_number>",
      "session_code": "<session_code>"
    },
    "name": "get_bill_vote_tallies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bill_number`	Yes
`session_code`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: discloses that most voice votes are missing, that there is no pass/fail flag (read description and tally instead), that block votes don't state bill count, what an empty list implies, and the two-request performance profile. This is unusually candid limitation disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Core purpose and the key sibling contrast are front-loaded, and the sentence fragments each carry information. Slightly literary phrasing ("it knows less") and a few extra clauses keep it from being maximally tight, but little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and the description adds the caveats the schema cannot (missing voice votes, no pass/fail flag, empty-list meaning). The one real gap is the absence of any guidance on the two required input parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for bill_number and session_code, but it explains neither (no format or expected value for either). It mentions vote_id and referred_to, but vote_id is not an input parameter here (it is for get_roll_call), so it adds no input semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource upfront ("A bill's votes with their tallies and no members") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_bill_votes ("lighter than get_bill_votes and it knows less"). An agent can tell exactly what it returns and how it differs from the richer sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names it as "the fast route to how a bill fared at each stage" and routes the agent to alternatives: get_roll_call for members, and implicitly get_bill_votes for the fuller picture. When-to-use and when-to-escalate are both explicit.

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