va-lis-mcp

get_bill_votes

Retrieve every recorded floor, committee, and subcommittee vote on a bill, in chronological order, across both chambers. Access member-level roll call records by passing a vote ID.

Instructions

Every recorded vote on a bill, in both chambers, in chronological order.

Floor, committee, and subcommittee votes all appear. is_roll_call is true when the recorded members voted on this bill alone; it is false for a voice vote (no members recorded) and for a block vote (one motion that disposed of bills_in_vote bills at once, which is not a position on any one of them). Pass a vote_id to get_roll_call for the member by member record. Costs one request per vote.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains is_roll_call semantics, voice votes, block votes, bills_in_vote, and the request cost per vote. This is far beyond what the raw schema or annotations would provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, vote type coverage, classification semantics, companion tool routing, and cost. The main purpose is front-loaded and the additional details are compact.

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?

The description is behaviorally rich and an output schema exists, so return values do not need elaboration. It is missing parameter-format guidance, but for a simple two-parameter tool with sibling tools like list_sessions and list_bills, the invocation path is adequately discoverable.

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% and the description does not explain bill_number or session_code formats, sources, or examples. The only parameter-related hint is 'on a bill,' which is too weak to compensate for the lack of schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns every recorded vote on a bill, in both chambers, in chronological order. It also distinguishes itself from get_roll_call by explaining that this tool provides votes while get_roll_call provides member-by-member records.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to see all floor, committee, and subcommittee votes for a bill. It explicitly points to get_roll_call when member-level detail is needed, though it does not mention alternatives like get_member_votes or get_bill_history.

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