va-lis-mcp

list_amended_bills

Every bill in a session that carries an amendment, with its amendments.

Instructions

Every bill in a session that carries an amendment, with its amendments.

amended_by picks the chamber that offered the amendments, not the chamber of the bills: "H" returns the bills with a House amendment, Senate bills among them, and only their House amendments. Each amendment has its document_code (HB1005AH1 is the first House amendment to HB1005), a description that names the committee or the floor, and a disposition (Adopted, Not Adopted, Engrossed, Removed, Posted). query is a case-insensitive substring match against the bill number and description. limit is capped at 200; page with offset.

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": {
      "session_code": "<session_code>"
    },
    "name": "list_amended_bills"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`offset`	No
`amended_by`	No
`session_code`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 largely succeeds: it discloses the 200-item limit cap, offset-based paging, case-insensitive substring matching, and the enumerated disposition values. It does not address auth requirements or whether the result is read-only, though the 'list_' prefix implies that.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then a paragraph that groups related parameters (chamber semantics, document_code, disposition, query, paging). The document_code example (HB1005AH1) and disposition list are dense but each earns its place; nothing reads as filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned amendment fields (document_code, description, disposition). Combined with the parameter guidance and paging rules, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, with only session_code left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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, and it does for 4 of 5 parameters, including the non-obvious gotcha that amended_by selects the chamber that offered the amendment rather than the bill's own chamber. Only session_code is left unexplained, which is a minor omission given it is required and self-evident.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource with a scoping condition: 'Every bill in a session that carries an amendment, with its amendments.' This distinguishes it from the sibling list_bills by its amendment-only scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through parameter semantics (use query to search, amended_by to filter by offering chamber). There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_bills, list_bill_versions, or get_bill_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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