va-lis-mcp

get_committee_statistics

LIS's own referral counts for each standing committee of one chamber.

Instructions

LIS's own referral counts for each standing committee of one chamber.

house_bills and senate_bills split each count by the bill's chamber of origin, so senate_bills on a House committee counts the Senate bills sent to it after crossover. The counts are referrals, not bills, and the columns do not add up: failed counts only what the committee itself killed, and in_subcommittee is a part of in_committee. Subcommittees have no rows. LIS names no bill behind a count; get_bill_history is the record of where one bill went.

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": {
      "chamber": "<chamber>",
      "session_code": "<session_code>"
    },
    "name": "get_committee_statistics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chamber`	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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that counts are referrals rather than bills, that columns do not sum, that 'failed' only counts committee-killed referrals, that 'in_subcommittee' is a subset of 'in_committee', and that subcommittees have no rows. It omits auth/rate-limit behavior, but the semantic disclosure of the returned data is rich.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct caveat (column arithmetic, membership relation, subcommittee absence, bill-level alternative). Dense but every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, yet the description still supplies the column semantics that make the output interpretable. The main gap is parameter-level guidance for session_code, which neither schema nor description covers.

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% for two required parameters, and the description barely compensates. It implies the chamber selector via 'one chamber' but never explains the H/S enum values, and session_code's format or valid range is left entirely to the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence states a specific resource and scope: referral counts per standing committee of one chamber. It distinguishes itself from per-bill tools by noting get_bill_history is 'the record of where one bill went.' The only weakness is that the verb is implicit (it reads as a noun phrase about data rather than an action).

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?

It routes the agent away from this tool when a single bill's path is needed, naming get_bill_history as the alternative. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_session_statistics, but the 'referrals, not bills' framing makes the aggregate use case clear.

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