Senado BR — Brazilian Federal Senate Open Data

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v3.3.3
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists between tools like `senado_buscar_materias` and `senado_search_processos`, and `senado_contratacoes_lista` vs `senado_contratos`. Descriptions help agents differentiate, but subtle differences may cause misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names consistently use the `senado_` prefix and snake_case, with a verb-noun pattern. However, verbs mix English and Portuguese (e.g., `buscar`, `listar`, `obter`, `search`), and some are not verbs (e.g., `senado_ceaps`). The pattern is recognizable but not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 66 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. The high granularity (e.g., separate tools for each e-Cidadania detail) creates unnecessary complexity. Many tools could be consolidated into fewer, more general endpoints.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering legislative tracking, voting, e-Cidadania, contracts, personnel, and administrative data. It covers most anticipated queries for the Brazilian Senate domain, with no obvious gaps.
Average 4.6/5 across 66 of 66 tools scored. Lowest: 4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 240 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
View related servers

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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context: returns structure { count, normas } with specific fields, and that it returns error if no parameters. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Description is concise with 4 sentences, each adding value: main function, output, constraint, and links to related tools. No fluff, but could be slightly more streamlined.
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 output schema exists, the description covers the return structure, required parameters, and related tools. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a query tool this is acceptable. Completeness is good.
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% with each parameter having a description. The description repeats the parameter names and adds the constraint that at least one is required, but does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 federal legal norms by tipo, numero, ano, or data. It specifies the resource (normas jurídicas) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning use of codigo for senado_obter_legislacao and valid types in senado_tabelas_referencia.
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 explicitly requires at least one parameter, else returns error. It provides context on when to use this tool vs. related tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The reference to sibling tools for detail and reference adds guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint as false. Description adds that it returns text, but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits). With annotations covering safety, a 3 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return type, followed by prerequisite guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite tool simplicity, the description covers purpose, prerequisite steps, return format, and parameter source. Annotations and output schema cover the rest. No gaps.
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% and the parameter description ('Código do pronunciamento') is clear. The description adds context on where to get the parameter value, but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves the full text of a specific speech, explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that list speeches, and specifies the return structure.
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?
Explicitly instructs to obtain the codigoPronunciamento first via sibling tools (senado_discursos_senador or senado_discursos_plenario). While it doesn't state when not to use, the guidance is clear and sufficient for this retrieval tool.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds return field details and prerequisite linkage, which is useful but not critical beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence covers purpose and return, second gives prerequisite. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is fully complete: it explains what, returns, and prerequisite. No gaps.
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% and already describes the codigo parameter. The description adds value by indicating the source for the code (senado_buscar_legislacao), but doesn't add further semantic detail beyond what schema provides.
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 it retrieves details of a specific federal legal norm by its code, lists return fields, and distinguishes itself from senado_buscar_legislacao by specifying that the code comes from that search tool.
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 explicitly instructs to obtain the code via senado_buscar_legislacao first, providing clear prerequisite and context. Could be strengthened by stating when not to use, but the guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return structure, ordering, and constraints (codigoParlamentar only works with autoria). No contradiction.
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?
Description is front-loaded with purpose and return shape, medium length, no redundant phrasing. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple retrieval with clear parameters and output schema. Description covers all necessary behavioral aspects, return format, and usage context. Fully complete for an info 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%; description adds context (e.g., codigoParlamentar only for autoria) but does not significantly extend schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it provides statistics on distribution of matters by committee, with type and optional filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the prerequisite tool senado_listar_comissoes.
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?
Explicitly states usefulness for measuring legislative workload and that committee sigla should be obtained via senado_listar_comissoes. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields, including conditional fields like videoUrl ('quando houver'), and the maximum number of pauta items. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and lists returns, the second provides a prerequisite. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.
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 the low complexity (single parameter, no enums), combined with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the return fields and the prerequisite. Minor gaps like explaining status values are not critical for this simple retrieval 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% with the parameter 'id' having a description 'ID do evento'. The description reinforces that the ID must be obtained first, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.
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 'Obtém o detalhe de um evento interativo do e-Cidadania', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' by mentioning that the ID should be obtained from that tool. The return fields are listed, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the ID via 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' before using this tool, which is direct usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior. Description adds key behavioral details: return format 'tabela, count, total, linhas', optional 'filtro' applied to sigla/description, default 'limite' of 200 (max 1000), and that 'count' is 0 when no match. No contradictions.
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?
Description is reasonably concise and well-structured: starts with purpose, then return format, then parameter details, then usage guidance. Could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns, parameter constraints, usage context (resolving codes for search tools), and edge cases (count=0). Fully adequate for agent invocation.
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?
Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of 'filtro' (over sigla/description) and 'limite' (default 200, max 1000) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool consults reference tables for legislative processes, enumerates the specific tables via 'tabela' parameter, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating its purpose is to resolve codes before filtering in 'senado_search_processos' and related tools.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (resolve codes before filtering in 'senado_search_processos' and related tools) and mentions edge cases (count=0 when filter doesn't match). Does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds value by explaining the return structure (codigoSenador, tipo, count, discursos with fields), stating that no full text is provided, and clarifying behavior for different tipo values (discursos vs apartes). This goes beyond annotations.
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?
Description is a single coherent paragraph, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter explanation, output format, cross-tool references. Not overly long, but packed with information. Could be slightly more structured, but very efficient.
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 the complexity (5 params, output schema described), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, output, and cross-tool usage. Does not mention error handling or pagination, but for a list tool with annotations, it is adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining the tipo parameter choices and default, and clarifying that dataInicio/dataFim are for period filtering. It also mentions casa filter in the purpose sentence. Adds value beyond 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 clearly states it lists pronouncements of a senator, with filters. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing senado_listar_senadores for codigoSenador and senado_discurso_texto for full text, implying this tool is for listing per-senator speeches.
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?
Provides clear context: use when you need pronouncements of a specific senator, filterable by period and house. Mentions alternative for full text (senado_discurso_texto) and prerequisite (senado_listar_senadores). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds behavioral details: return format with empty object possibility, error condition, and parameter effects. No contradiction.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Concise yet informative; no redundant information. One slight improvement could be combining error and empty object statements.
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 the presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers key return behavior, edge cases (empty and error), and parameter context. Sufficient for a simple veto result tool.
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 coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the 'tipo' enum values and the default behavior, plus how to obtain code via another tool. Adds value.
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?
Description clearly states 'Resultado da votação nominal de um veto presidencial' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_vetos by focusing on the voting result itself.
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?
Provides explicit context: returns empty object if not yet voted, error if code invalid, and directs to senado_vetos for obtaining the code. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but clear usage guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format (`{ tabela, count, total, linhas }`) and the behavior of `filtro` (text search) and `limite` (result cutoff with default 100). No contradictions.
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 description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, then details return format and parameter behavior. It covers all needed information without extraneous text.
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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of a complete output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, return format, and usage context. It could mention pagination if any, but for a reference table lookup it seems complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds operational context: 'filtro faz busca textual' and 'limite corta o resultado (padrão 100)', clarifying how they affect the query beyond the schema's basic 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 it provides reference tables for the plenary to resolve codes and domains, explicitly listing the three tables (tipos-sessao, tipos-comparecimento, legislaturas) and mentioning its use to interpret fields like 'tipo' from sibling tools. This distinguishes it from other tools.
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 explicitly tells when to use it: 'Use para interpretar campos como `tipo` retornados por `senado_agenda_plenario` e `senado_resultado_plenario`.' It implies a consultative role but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent. The description adds context about the source of the id and the output structure, which is transparent and non-contradictory.
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 concise (approximately 4-5 lines) with the main purpose front-loaded. It efficiently includes return details, parameter guidance, and links to sibling tools without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, clear output structure), the description fully covers how to use it, where to get the id, and how to complement with related tools. It is complete and actionable.
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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces the schema by explaining 'id' as a session/meeting code, 'tipo' default, and 'orador' filter. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 it lists videos/audios from a session or committee meeting, specifies the return structure with fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_notas_taquigraficas that provide transcripts.
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 explains how to obtain the required 'id' parameter by referencing related tools (senado_agenda_plenario, senado_resultado_plenario, senado_reuniao_comissao) and suggests filtering by 'orador' and using senado_notas_taquigraficas for transcripts. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it explains the return format, limits (default 100, max 500), and error conditions for invalid type-section combinations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 description is appropriately sized, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details, return format, usage note, and error condition. No redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, type-section combinations, pagination via limite, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: it explains the purpose, parameter meanings, return structure, limits, prerequisites, and error handling. The output schema exists but the description provides enough context on the return fields.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of each parameter: id is from lists, tipo enumerations with descriptions, secao with restrictions (aditivos only for contratos, acionamentos only for atas), and limite with default and max. This significantly aids understanding.
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 explicitly states the tool details a specific section of a contracting. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the id should be obtained from 'senado_contratos' or 'senado_contratacoes_lista'.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to get details of a contracting section) and prerequisites (obtain id from list tools). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient. No explicit alternatives are given, but the prerequisite hints at the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by explaining pagination limits (max 20 blocks per call in text mode), return structure details per mode, and linkage to other tools for input. It does not disclose any potential side effects beyond the read operation, which aligns with annotations.
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 description is a single paragraph, front-loaded with the primary function. It packs substantial detail without being overly verbose; each sentence contributes necessary information (return structure, mode behavior, input sourcing, filtering). Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but current form is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with six parameters, the description sufficiently covers all essential aspects: how to obtain the required id (via sibling tools), mode behavior, pagination with limits, filtering, and the return structure. The output schema exists, so explaining return fields is appropriate. Given the tool's complexity and the annotation coverage, the description provides complete contextual guidance.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description. The tool description enhances this by explaining the functional impact of parameters: e.g., modo differentiates between summary and full text, tipo selects session vs committee, sequenciaInicio/Fim control pagination, and orador filters by speaker. It also notes default values and the maximum block count in text mode, going beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves official transcriptions (notas taquigráficas) of plenary sessions or committee meetings. It distinguishes from siblings by instructing how to obtain the required id via senado_agenda_plenario or senado_reuniao_comissao, and points to senado_videos_taquigrafia for media, clearly differentiating its purpose.
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?
Provides clear context for usage: obtaining transcripts of sessions/meetings and filtering by speaker. It explains modes (resumo vs texto) and pagination control. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for other data types) or list alternatives beyond obtaining the id, though the sibling references imply appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure with field names.
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?
Two sentences with no extraneous content. The purpose is front-loaded, and the structure is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameters, output structure, and sibling references. Output schema exists, so description complements it well.
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% with descriptions and patterns. The description reinforces that both parameters are mandatory and provides the date format YYYYMMDD, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Lista todos os discursos realizados em plenário num período de datas' with specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for filtering by senator or getting full text.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (listing all speeches in date range) and when-not-to-use (for specific parliamentarian use `senado_discursos_senador`). Naming alternatives gives clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, notably that the 'descricao' field is truncated to ~2000 characters and lists the returned fields.
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?
Two concise sentences with no waste. The purpose and key usage instruction are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete: it explains the return fields, a behavioral nuance (truncation), and the prerequisite step. No gaps remain.
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% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'ID da ideia legislativa'. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Obtém o detalhe de uma ideia legislativa do e-Cidadania' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'senado_ecidadania_listar_ideias' by noting the prerequisite to obtain the ID first.
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?
Explicitly instructs to obtain the ID via 'senado_ecidadania_listar_ideias' before using this tool, providing clear context on when to use this tool versus its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining internal filtering logic and output structure, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
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 concise (5-6 sentences), well-structured with purpose first, then output format, then parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters with defaults, return structure, and next steps. With an output schema available, it is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by summarizing criteria, explaining defaults, and clarifying how parameters affect behavior (e.g., 'apenasEmTramitacao padrão true → considera só consultas abertas').
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 suggests topics for a monthly public poll, analyzing consultations and ideas, and filtering by engagement criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas by focusing on selecting top suggestions.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to get suggestions) and what to do next (use senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta or senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia). It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral traits: encontro may be empty, error on nonexistent codigo, fields vary by secao. No contradiction.
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?
Description is detailed but front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but not excessively so.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists and context signals, description covers return structure, variations, error cases, and input source. Fully adequate for complex tool with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining how secao values affect output and how codigo is obtained from sibling tools.
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?
Description specifies verb 'retorna' and resource 'encontro legislativo (sessão de plenário)'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning how to obtain codigo and listing secao options.
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?
Explicitly states that codigo should be obtained from senado_agenda_plenario or senado_resultado_plenario, providing clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but gives sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. Description adds that data is from 2013 onward and details the return structure, but does not contradict annotations. It provides useful context without overstating effects.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and gradually add details. Every sentence is informative with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (fields and meaning) and optional filters. It also mentions the starting year and relation to sibling tool, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description repeats the schema info (partial search for nome, default/max for limite) but adds no new meaning beyond a concise summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns overtime payments for Senate employees by year/month, with specific verb 'retorna' and resource 'horas extras pagas'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'senado_remuneracoes_servidores' by explicitly directing users there for full compensation.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (list overtime for a given month/year) and when-not-to-use (for full compensation, use sibling). Also mentions optional filters and defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return format structure (casa, mesa, count, membros with fields), providing transparency beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences plus one on return format, all front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is essential and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description completely covers a simple tool: parameter explanation, return format, and sibling differentiation. With no required params and output schema present, nothing is missing.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter). The description adds value by explaining the parameter's meaning and values more fully than the schema, which only gives abbreviated 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 verb 'Lista' and the resource 'membros da Mesa Diretora', providing specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'senado_liderancas' by explicitly directing users to that tool for leadership details.
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 explains when to use this tool (to list mesa members) and provides an alternative for lideranças. It also explains the casa parameter options. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: truncation behavior with aviso for tramitacao/textos, ordering (most recent first), and that 'limite' applies only to those sections. No contradiction with annotations.
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 description is structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then details each secao value in bullet-like form. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and it is well-organized for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema existing, the description complements it by explaining the structure for each secao, ordering, truncation behavior, and dependencies (getting codigoMateria from sibling tool). It covers all aspects needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description goes beyond by detailing the return structure for each secao value, explaining default limits (100 for tramitacao, 50 for textos), and that codigoMateria is obtained via sibling tool. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 obtains data of a matter by codigoMateria, with optional secao parameter and default 'detalhe'. It explicitly references the sibling tool 'senado_buscar_materias' for obtaining the codigoMateria, distinguishing its purpose.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use each secao value (detalhe for full details, tramitacao for history, textos for documents) and mentions default limits. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but it explains the context for each section and references the alternative tool for searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, idempotent reading. The description adds value by specifying the return structure ('{ secao, count, total, aviso?, itens }'), limit behavior (default 100, max 500), and raw API records for prazos. No contradictions with annotations.
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 description is a single paragraph but well-organized: main purpose first, then each section with its fields and filters, common parameters, return format, and prerequisite references. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly dense. Minor room for brevity, but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, 3 sections, multiple conditional filters) and that an output schema exists, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, each secao's fields and accepted filters, return structure, limit, and prerequisites. It does not explain field semantics in depth, but the output schema likely covers that. Complete for the tool's needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains each secao's specific fields (e.g., emendas returns id, identificacao, etc.), optional filters per section (e.g., codigoParlamentarAutor for emendas), and date format (YYYYMMDD or ISO). This enriches the schema descriptions and helps select correct parameters.
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 details aspects of legislative processes ('Detalha um aspecto de processos legislativos') based on the 'secao' parameter, listing three specific sections (emendas, relatorias, prazos) with detailed fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like senado_obter_processo (general process info) and senado_search_processos (search) by focusing on detailed sub-aspects.
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 provides explicit guidance: it tells users to obtain 'idProcesso' via 'senado_search_processos' and use 'senado_tabelas_processo' for prazo types. It states at least one filter is required and explains which filters apply per section. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the context implies it's for detailed aspect queries, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by detailing the returned object structure (fields and nesting). No contradictions. No additional behavioral traits mentioned, but the tool is simple and read-only.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and structured enumeration of returned fields. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no enums, output schema present), the description fully explains the input source, output structure, and nesting. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for codigoReuniao. The description adds meaning by linking the parameter to values from other tools, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Detalha' and resource 'reunião de comissão', clearly stating it details a commission meeting by codigoReuniao. It lists the returned fields and distinguishes from siblings by indicating how to obtain the input code from senado_agenda_comissoes or senado_reunioes_comissao.
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 explicitly states to obtain codigoReuniao from two sibling tools, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds edge-case behavior (empty lists with count 0) and detailed return structures, adding value beyond annotations.
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?
Efficiently formatted with examples and structured explanation of three tipos. Every sentence is informative, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given rich annotations, output schema, and three parameters, the description is complete: covers all tipos, filters, empty behavior, and cross-reference to related tool. No gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameters. Description clarifies that uf/nome filters apply to specific tipos, and nome also filters aposentados. This goes beyond the 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?
Description clearly states it provides 'dados administrativos dos senadores' and lists three specific tipos with return structures. It distinguishes from sibling tool senado_ceaps by directing CEAPS queries elsewhere.
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?
Explicitly mentions when to use alternative tool (senado_ceaps) for different data. Describes filter applicability and empty-result behavior. Could expand on relative to other siblings like senado_listar_senadores.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return structure (periodo, count, votos), each vote's fields, ordering from most recent to oldest, default period behavior (current year), and date format requirements. No contradictions with annotations.
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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers return format, period options, prerequisites, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 list tool with 4 parameters (1 required), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers how to get the senator code, period specification, return structure, ordering, and alternative tool. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or error handling, but the output schema likely covers the return format.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the alternative period specification (ano or dataInicio/dataFim) and the date format (YYYYMMDD), as well as linking to senado_listar_senadores for codigoSenador.
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 description clearly states it lists nominal votes of a senator with voting details. It references sibling tools for obtaining the senator code and for specific vote details, but does not explicitly differentiate from other vote-listing tools like senado_votos_materia.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool (to list a senator's votes), how to obtain the required parameter codigoSenador via senado_listar_senadores, and suggests senado_obter_votacao for detailed vote information. It also explains period options and defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (codigoMateria, count, votacoes with fields data, descricao, resultado, placar) and the effect of incluirVotos (adding votos[]), which is beyond the annotation scope.
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 compact yet comprehensive: it states the purpose in one sentence, details the return structure, explains the optional parameter's effect, and provides prerequisite guidance. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the two parameters, full annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers all relevant aspects: what the tool does, required input, optional parameter behavior, output format, and how to obtain the required parameter. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining that incluirVotos (default false) adds a votos array with nome, partido, uf, voto for each senator, and that codigoMateria is the unique code, providing context beyond the 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 clearly states 'Obtém as votações de uma matéria pelo codigoMateria', specifying the verb (obtém), resource (votações de uma matéria), and the required identifier (codigoMateria). It distinguishes from siblings like senado_buscar_materias (search) and senado_obter_materia (details) by focusing on voting data.
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 explicitly recommends obtaining codigoMateria via senado_buscar_materias or senado_obter_materia, providing clear prerequisite guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the focused purpose implies the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: explains modes, status behavior (including the limitation on encerrada), ordering criteria, default values, and return format. No contradictions.
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 description is well-structured with clear sentences and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, modes, status nuances, defaults, limitations) and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: modes, ordering, status, defaults, limitation, return format, and sibling tool reference. Complete for an analysis tool.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic detail beyond schema, e.g., explaining how percentualMinimo and margemPolarizacao work in each mode, and the meaning of the return object.
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 analyzes public consultations by agreement degree (consenso or polarizada), differentiating from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta. It specifies the verb 'analisa' and the resource 'consultas públicas abertas (matérias em tramitação)'.
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 explains when to use each mode, the meaning of status options (aberta, encerrada, todas), and mentions the sibling tool for detail. It provides defaults and limitations (e.g., closed consultations before first load not captured), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that data is updated weekly, treats status as historical, and returns specific structure (count, referencePeriod, consultas). No contradictions.
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?
Description is well-structured with bold keywords, uses bullet-like paragraphs, and is concise given the complexity. Could be slightly shorter but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema present), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, return structure, and behavioral traits. Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in description.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds explanatory context about 'ranquear por aquele estado' for 'uf', 'ranking' for 'ordenarPor'/'ordem', and clarifies 'materia' filter 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?
The description clearly defines the tool as an archive of historical votes with breakdown by UF, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas' which deals with current consultations.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (historical archive) vs. the sibling, explains the meaning of the 'status' field, and elaborates on parameter usage like 'uf' for filtering and ranking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and noting that some fields may be null. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
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 description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action but could be broken into multiple sentences for improved readability. However, there is no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description explains the tool's return object fields, parameter source, and notes about nullable fields. For a simple retrieval tool, this covers all necessary context for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter 'id' described as 'ID da consulta pública'. The description adds context by explaining that the id comes from specific sibling tools, and also mentions the return structure, which helps infer the parameter's purpose.
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 retrieves details of a specific public consultation from e-Cidadania, with a specific verb ('Obtém') and resource. It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas and senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to obtain the 'id' parameter via senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas or senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise, providing clear prerequisite guidance on when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by disclosing the internal resolution of sigla to a numeric code and detailing the response structures for each section, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
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-organized paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, options, and cross-tool dependency. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what each parameter does, what the outputs look like, and how to prepare inputs (find sigla via sibling tool). It is complete for effective agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have 100% schema coverage. The description adds significant meaning: examples for sigla (CCJ, CAE), explains the resolution process, and clarifies the section parameter's options and corresponding output structures, going well beyond the schema definitions.
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 retrieves commission data by sigla, with two section options. It differentiates itself from senado_listar_comissoes by noting that the sigla can be discovered via that sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to get commission details) and how to obtain the sigla via senado_listar_comissoes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other similar tools like senado_reuniao_comissao, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: return format with fields like tabela, count, total, aviso, registros; explanation of empty results (count 0 and empty list); filtering behavior; and limit constraints (default 100, max 2000). No contradiction with annotations.
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 description is a dense single paragraph that efficiently packs all necessary information. While it is concise and avoids fluff, it could benefit from structured sections for readability. Nevertheless, it earns its place with every sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, one required with enum, output schema described), the description covers all aspects: tool purpose, all table values, return structure, edge cases (empty results), filtering, limit constraints, and cross-reference to sibling tool. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still provides a clear summary.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantic categories of tabela (quantitative vs. lists), how they affect the response structure, and the purpose of filtro (textual match against any field) and limite (max records). This additional context helps the agent understand parameter usage.
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 queries Senate personnel tables, listing all eight table values and distinguishing between quantitative aggregates and nominal lists. It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool (senado_servidores) by directing to it for a specific use case.
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 provides clear context on what each table value represents and when to use the tool. It includes an explicit exclusion: for nominal registration of servers, use senado_servidores. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when you need X' but the purpose is well understood from the content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read operation; description adds pagination termination condition (count=0), empty result behavior, and return structure. No contradictions.
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?
Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and key details. Efficient but could be slightly more structured; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description adequately covers return keys and pagination logic. Also references sibling tool for discovering CPIs. Complete for agent to use independently.
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 covers both parameters with full descriptions (examples, min, default). Description adds pagination context but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it lists requerimentos of a CPI, specifies parameters (siglaCpi, pagina), and explains output structure. It distinguishes from sibling senado_listar_comissoes by directing users to that tool for getting CPI siglas.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use (to list requerimentos of a CPI), how to paginate (zero-based index, stop when count=0), and provides alternative for discovering siglas via sibling tool. No exclusion criteria needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds details about return structures (e.g., 'count, tipos', 'totalSenadores, partidos') and the constant 'tabela' field, providing context beyond annotations.
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?
Description is moderately long but well-organized with bullet-like structure using semicolons. Front-loaded with main verb. No redundant phrases, though it packs many details into a single paragraph.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool, description covers purpose, all parameter values, return structures, connections to other tools, and edge cases (e.g., 'Toda resposta inclui o campo tabela'). Highly complete.
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 coverage is 100% with enum and description. The description adds detailed meaning for each enum value, including return shapes and usage context, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Consulta tabelas de referência do Senado pelo parâmetro tabela', enumerates all possible values and their output structures. It distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_listar_senadores for parliamentarian lists.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: to find correct sigla before senado_buscar_materias/senado_search_processos, and to interpret tipoUsoPalavra in senado_discursos_senador. Also directs to senado_listar_senadores for nominal list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact return structure (campos: data, siglaComissao, count, reunioes with nested fields) and the scope (date-based with optional committee filter). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and parameters, then lists the return format, and finally gives sibling guidance. Every sentence adds new value; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two optional parameters, a provided output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how to use it (defaults, filters), what it returns, and how it relates to similar tools. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. However, the description adds meaning: it notes the default value for 'data' (padrão: hoje) and that 'siglaComissao' is optional. This extra context, especially the default, helps the agent know it can be omitted for today's agenda.
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 it obtains the agenda of all committee meetings on a date, with an optional committee filter. It lists the return fields and distinguishes itself from siblings (senado_reunioes_comissao and senado_reuniao_comissao), leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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?
The description explicitly mentions the default date (today) and the optional filter. It provides clear guidance on when to use alternative tools: 'Para o histórico de uma única comissão por período use senado_reunioes_comissao; para detalhes de uma reunião use senado_reuniao_comissao com o codigo'. This covers both when to use this tool and when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (data, escopo, count, sessoes) and session fields (codigo, data, hora, tipo, situacao, pauta), which goes beyond annotations.
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 one dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then returns structure, then usage, then related tools. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure, parameter behavior, and related tools. It is complete for effective use without needing additional context.
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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the escopo enum values (dia, mes, cn), default for data (today), and that dataFim is only for escopo=cn. This contextualizes the schema beyond its minimal 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 obtains the agenda of plenary sessions for Senate or National Congress, with specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like senado_encontro_plenario and senado_resultado_plenario by mentioning when to use those instead.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Para o resultado já apreciado use senado_resultado_plenario; detalhes de uma sessão via senado_encontro_plenario'). Also explains parameter defaults and scope behavior ('Use escopo dia/mes/cn; sem data assume hoje').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses the return structure, ordering, filters behavior (partial search without accents), and defaults/limits. It also explains that only authors with processes in tramitação are included. No contradictions.
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 concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and ordering, then detail return structure and parameters. No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that lists authors with filters and ordering, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, filtering, ordering, limit constraints, and cross-reference to other tools. It is complete given the presence of an output schema (implied by the described return structure).
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 100% (each parameter documented), but the description adds value by explaining that 'nome' is a partial search without accents, 'uf' is a 2-letter code, and 'limite' has a default of 50 and max 1000. This goes beyond the schema alone.
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 lists parliamentary authors of pending processes, ordered by production (most matters first). It distinguishes itself from siblings like senado_listar_senadores (which lists all senators) by specifying it only includes authors with active processes and providing a specific ordering.
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 provides usage guidance by stating the output 'codigo' can be used in 'senado_obter_senador' or 'senado_search_processos'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it but the context is clear. A more explicit differentiation from senado_listar_senadores would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the limit behavior (default 50, max 500, truncation with `aviso`) and the structure of returned items (id, numero, objeto, empresa, etc.). No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Extremely concise: three sentences cover purpose, return structure, and usage guidance. No filler. Front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, filters, return structure (top-level and item fields), limit behavior, and how to use the result for further detail. Output schema exists, so full return value documentation is not required. The description is complete for a search tool of this complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the filterable fields and noting that filters are applied upstream. It also explains the `limite` parameter with default and max. This provides additional meaning beyond the individual parameter 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 explicitly states 'Busca contratos administrativos do Senado por fornecedor, CNPJ, ano, número, objeto ou mão de obra', clearly identifying the tool's verb (search) and resource (administrative contracts). It distinguishes from sibling tools by directing the user to use the returned `id` with `senado_contratacao_detalhe` for more details.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to search contracts with various filters) and when to use alternative (for detailed contract info, use `senado_contratacao_detalhe`). Also explains the limit parameter behavior with default and maximum, and the truncation warning via `aviso`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so description adds value by detailing return structure (count, total, empresas with specific fields and max 30 contracts). No contradictions.
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?
Two efficient sentences with all relevant information, front-loaded with action, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity, annotations, and output schema, the description covers search behavior, required parameters, return format, limit, and cross-references to other tools. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, description adds context: min 3 chars for nome, partial search for cnpj, default and max for limite, and clarifies that one of nome/cnpj is needed.
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 companies contracting with the Senate by name or CNPJ/CPF, distinguishes from siblings by referencing detailed tools for further information.
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?
Explicitly states that either nome or cnpj is required to avoid querying the full database, and suggests using the returned id with other tools for details. Provides clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral details: returns raw records, default/max limit, and authentication implications (none mentioned, but no contradiction).
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences front-load purpose, include usage example, limit info, and sibling reference—no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, the description fully covers behavior: return format, error condition, limit details, and relationship to sibling tool.
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 has 100% coverage, and description adds value with format examples (e.g., '19/2018') and clarifies that at least one filter is required but both are optional.
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 Senate bidding processes by exact number or object text, explicitly differentiating from the sibling tool 'senado_contratos'.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (by number or object text) and when-not (no filter returns error), plus an alternative for the resulting contract: use senado_contratos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return structure ({count, liderancas}) and the fields within each item, which is beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, the first stating purpose and return format, the second giving filtering and alternative. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, optional filters) and the presence of annotations and output schema (implied by the return structure described), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, default behavior, return format, and alternative tool. It is complete for the agent to use correctly.
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 100% with each parameter having a basic description. The description adds value by consolidating the filtering options and stating the default behavior (returns all without filters), which provides additional context beyond the schema.
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 purpose: listing leadership roles in the Senate and National Congress. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'lideranças', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'senado_listar_blocos' by mentioning it is for blocos composition.
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?
The description provides explicit filtering options (casa, codigoParlamentar, vigente, siglaTipoLideranca) and states that without filters it returns all. It also explicitly names an alternative tool ('senado_listar_blocos') for blocos composition, giving clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the return format and structure (count, blocos, each with nested partidos). This provides context beyond annotations, but no behavioral surprises.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and return structure, second gives usage guidance and links to sibling tools. No waste, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existing output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it. It also references related tools for next steps, making it contextually complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description cannot add meaning to them. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly states there are no inputs, so no further elaboration needed.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists all parliamentary blocs and their member parties. Explicitly mentions the return structure with fields like count, blocos, codigo, nome, etc. Differentiates from sibling tools by referencing senado_obter_bloco for detail and senado_liderancas for leadership.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use this tool to discover a bloc's codigo, then use senado_obter_bloco for details; for leadership, use senado_liderancas. This helps the agent decide when to call this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details like default emExercicio=true, partial name matching ignoring accents, local filtering for UF/partido, and the return structure with count and senadores. This provides context beyond annotations.
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 description is concise but thorough, with front-loaded examples and structured sentences. It efficiently covers purpose, parameters, return format, and sibling references. Slightly lengthy but no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and an output schema, the description explains the return structure, gives usage examples, cross-references sibling tools, and covers edge cases (afastados). It is fully comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant meaning: explains emExercicio default and alternative legislatura, describes nome's partial fuzzy matching, clarifies uf/partido are local filters, and gives usage context (e.g., use nome when you need codigo). This substantially enhances understanding.
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 lists senators in office or by legislature with optional filters. It includes specific usage examples and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_senadores_afastados, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (listing senators, filtering by UF/party, getting codigo from name) and when not to (for afastados, recommending senado_senadores_afastados). It also suggests using codigo in other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds detail about the returned object structure (including null for extinct blocs) and error behavior, going beyond structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema (implied by the description of returned fields) and rich annotations, the description covers prerequisites, return structure, error case, and parameter source comprehensively.
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 coverage is 100% with a short description for 'codigo'. The tool description adds context on how to obtain the parameter value (from listar_blocos), adding meaning beyond the schema.
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 it obtains details of a specific parliamentary bloc by code. The verb 'Obtém' and resource 'bloco parlamentar' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'senado_listar_blocos' which lists all blocs.
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?
Explicitly instructs to get the 'codigo' parameter via 'senado_listar_blocos' first, and warns that an inexistent code returns an error. This provides clear when-to-use and expected outcomes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds detailed return structure beyond what annotations provide, enhancing transparency.
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?
Two sentences: first covers purpose and return fields, second covers usage and alternatives. No redundancy, well-front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one param, output schema present, good annotations), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, return structure, parameter acquisition, and alternative tools.
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 already covers parameter semantics with 100% coverage. Description adds practical guidance on how to obtain the parameter value, which adds value.
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 verb 'obtém' and the resource 'detalhe biográfico de um senador específico', distinguishing it from siblings by directing to senado_listar_senadores and senado_senador_historico.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (to get biographical detail) and when not (use senado_senador_historico for other historical data), and how to obtain the required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context about return types (handling single vs multiple votings) and the relationship between codigoVotacao and codigoSessao, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a prerequisite. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to get input, what output to expect (including two formats), and the prerequisite step. It's complete for a single-parameter read tool with an output schema.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds semantic value by explaining that codigoVotacao equals codigoSessao, which aids understanding beyond the schema.
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 purpose: to obtain details of a voting including nominal votes, using the codigoVotacao parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that codigoVotacao is the same as codigoSessao and that codigoSessao should be obtained from senado_search_votacoes first.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to obtain codigoSessao via senado_search_votacoes before calling this tool, providing clear when-to-use guidance and pointing to an alternative tool for searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety traits are already clear. The description adds behavioral details: explains the return structures for both modes (aggregated vs individual), mentions truncation with 'aviso' if limit exceeded, and specifies that results are limited by 'limite' (max 500), providing useful context beyond the annotations.
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 paragraph but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then details mode options with output structures, followed by filtering and pointing to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 modes, multiple optional filters, limit parameter, and output schema), the description covers all aspects: it explains output structure for both modes, truncation behavior, how to avoid large result sets, and even cross-references the related tool for employee registry. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents them. However, the description adds value by explaining the effect of 'nome' and 'tipoFolha' filters, the default behavior of 'modo', and practical usage tips like filtering to avoid long lists, enhancing understanding beyond bare schema.
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 it retrieves remuneration data for Senate employees for a given year/month from 2013 onwards. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that for employee registry one should use 'senado_servidores'.
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?
It explains when to use 'resumo' (default) vs 'detalhe' mode, advises filtering by 'nome' or 'tipoFolha' in detalhe to avoid long lists, and points to the alternative tool 'senado_servidores' for employee registry, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds mandatory filter requirement and date window limit, plus return structure. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes constraints and return shape. No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 8 parameters, 0 required, output schema, sibling link, and constraining rules, the description is fully informative. No gaps.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions filter types (sigla, número, ano, autor, período) but doesn't detail each parameter beyond schema. Adequate but not exceptional.
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?
Clearly states it searches for legislative processes using endpoint v3 `/processo` and explicitly distinguishes from sibling `senado_buscar_materias` as complementary. Verb+resource+scope are specific.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use: 'É obrigatório ao menos um filtro...' and directs to sibling `senado_obter_processo` for details. Also states constraints like max 1-year date window.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by detailing return structure and stating that emExercicio is always false, which is beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return structure, and usage context.
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?
No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no extra param info, but none is needed.
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 uses specific verb 'Lista' and resource 'senadores atualmente afastados', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like senado_listar_senadores (for active senators).
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?
Explicitly states no parameters needed and provides direct guidance on when to use alternatives: use senado_obter_senador for detail on a senator, and senado_listar_senadores for active senators or search by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already confirm read-only and idempotent. Description adds concrete behavioral details: applies limit (default 50, max 500), includes truncation warning. No contradictions.
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?
Single, dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, filters, return shape, limit behavior, and sibling references. No superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With full schema coverage and output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: main action, optional filters, return format, truncation handling, and alternative tools. No gaps.
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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining parameter usage in context (e.g., 'busca parcial' for nome, lotacao, cargo) and clarifying return structure with count and total.
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 it lists servers by situation with optional filters. It specifies the return structure and distinguishes from sibling tools by pointing to alternatives for remuneration and interns/pensioners.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (list servers by situation) and when to use alternatives (remuneration, interns/pensioners). It also advises refining filters when truncation occurs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail: return format {ano, tipo, count, total, registros}, filtering by filtro textual, pagination with limite (default 100, max 500), truncation resulting in aviso, and snake_case naming. This goes well beyond the annotations.
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 packs purpose, options, return format, filtering, and cross-reference hints without redundancy. Every part is essential and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (100% schema coverage), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adds the final missing pieces: output structure, truncation behavior, and cross-reference advice. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context: ano must be >=2010, tipo has specific options with default 'supridos', filtro is for textual search (ex: nome, unidade), and limite has default and max. It does not enumerate all tipo values, but the schema already does. The added value is moderate.
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 is for 'Suprimento de fundos do Senado' and lists specific data types (supridos, atos-concessao, etc.), matching the name precisely. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning cross-referencing with senado_contratacoes_lista and senado_execucao_orcamentaria, providing context that this tool is for financial advances rather than procurement or budget execution.
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 specifies when to use the tool: for annual suprimento data with year >=2010, and recommends reusing administrative codes from sibling tools for cross-referencing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool for the right scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the full list is downloaded and filtered in the Worker, and results are limited with a truncation warning, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence covers purpose, filterability, and return structure. Second sentence adds technical details and sibling reference. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given annotations and output schema (though not shown in input, description lists fields), the description is complete for an AI agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect. Includes warning about truncation.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds that nome, empresa, lotacao are partial search without accents, and limits the resultado limit to limite with default and maximum. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.
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 it lists outsourced employees of the Senate, with filtering by name, company, or location. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'senado_empresas_contratadas' by explicitly directing users to that tool for different needs.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to list outsourced employees with filtering) and when not (for empresa contratante, use 'senado_empresas_contratadas'). This provides clear guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral context: return format, status transitions, limitation that encerradas before first ingestion are not captured. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single paragraph packed with information, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but still appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, output schema present, many sibling tools), the description is complete. It explains return format, parameter meanings, limitations, and links to other tools. Output schema covers return fields.
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 coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains default status 'aberta', describes encerrada/todas, and notes the limitation about encerradas before first ingestion. Adds context about status lifecycle.
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 identifies the resource ('consultas públicas do e-Cidadania') and action ('Lista'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives for detail (obter_consulta) and analysis (consultas_analise).
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: for a list of consultations, for detail call senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta, for analysis call senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise. Also explains default status and filtering options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return structure (tipo, modo, ano, totalLinhas, agregado[] or despesas[]/receitas[]), truncation with aviso, and ordering. Annotations confirm read-only, safe behavior.
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?
Single dense paragraph with clear flow: purpose, return format, usage, differentiation. Efficient but could be more structured with bullets for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all key aspects: data scope, parameter interplay, result format, filtering advice, and sibling differentiation. Output schema likely fills remaining gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameters, but description adds context: links modo to tipo, explains ano for volume reduction, and notes default limite.
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?
Clearly states it covers Senate budget execution (expenses and revenues), lists year ranges, and distinguishes from sibling tool senado_orcamento_parlamentar.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to use each tipo with corresponding modos, recommends filtering by ano before detalhe, and warns against confusion with another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. Description adds context by listing returned fields, which is helpful despite existence of output schema. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and fields, second provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and rich annotations; description covers purpose, field list, source of id, and required alternatives. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter idProcesso is described in schema with 100% coverage. Description adds extra guidance on sourcing the id from other tools, adding semantic value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Obtém detalhes completos de um processo legislativo específico pelo seu `id`', specifying the verb, resource, and identification method. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing senado_search_processos and senado_processo_detalhe.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (to get full details of a process) and when to use alternatives (senado_processo_detalhe for emendas, relatorias, prazos). Also instructs to obtain idProcesso from other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details: that no other parameters are accepted, and that count is 0 with an empty list when no records exist. It also details the output structure for each tipo, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 paragraph of five sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and resource, then concisely details the output formats and usage guidelines. Every sentence provides value with no repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter with enum, no required parameters, output schema implicitly documented in description), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, parameter effect, output shapes, empty result behavior, and differentiation from a sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'tipo' having an enum and description. The description adds significant meaning by explaining how the output structure changes based on the parameter value ('tipo: emendas' vs 'tipo: oficios'), providing concrete JSON shapes.
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 action (Lista/List) and resource (emendas parlamentares/ofícios de apoio). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'senado_execucao_orcamentaria' by noting the different scope (federal budget vs. internal Senate budget).
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?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (for parliamentary amendments to the federal budget) and when not (for internal Senate budget execution), naming the alternative tool 'senado_execucao_orcamentaria'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds detailed return structure (count, votacoes with fields), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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?
Single paragraph, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second describes output structure, third gives input guidance, fourth points to sibling. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completeness is high: purpose, return format, input options, and alternative tool are all explained. Output schema exists, but description further details fields. Input parameters fully described in schema and clarified in description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 3 parameters are covered in schema (100% coverage). Description adds critical semantic guidance: input either 'data' (single day) OR the period 'dataInicio'/'dataFim', clarifying mutual exclusivity not present in schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves party leadership orientation in plenary votes with vote tallies, specifically for party discipline analysis. It distinguishes from sibling tool senado_resultado_plenario by mentioning that tool is for session results.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (for orientation and placar) and when not to (for session results, use senado_resultado_plenario). Directly names an alternative tool, providing clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return structure, pagination (none), null fields for undecided items, and edge case of no session (count=0, sessoes empty). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so description adds specific behavioral context.
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?
Description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then return details, edge case, and sibling references. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema and annotations exist, the description covers return format, parameter details, edge cases, and distinguishes from siblings. No gaps.
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 has 100% description coverage, but description adds meaning: date pattern YYYYMMDD and that escopo=mes accepts any day of the month. It also explains the three escopo values in Portuguese.
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?
Description clearly states it returns results of plenary sessions on a date, listing items, opinions, and outcomes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_agenda_plenario and senado_orientacao_bancada.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use (results of plenary sessions) and when not to (use senado_agenda_plenario for agenda, senado_orientacao_bancada for bancada orientation). Also explains escopo parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details such as the response structure (`codigoSenador, tipo, count, itens`) and behavior for empty results (count 0, empty itens), which supplements the annotations effectively.
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 concise yet comprehensive, packing all essential information into a single paragraph. Sentences are front-loaded with the main purpose, and each subsequent clause adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of multiple `tipo` values and varying item structures, the description fully explains the response shape and edge cases (e.g., empty results). The presence of an output schema is inferred, and the description bridges any gaps, making the tool well-understood.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches each `tipo` value by describing the fields returned (e.g., for `licencas`: `dataInicio`, `dataFim`, `descricao`). It also clarifies that `historico-academico` returns raw API records, adding meaning beyond 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 specifies the tool retrieves functional history of a senator based on the `tipo` parameter. It lists each value with its associated fields, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like `senado_obter_senador`, which handles biographical data and mandates.
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?
The description explicitly states the prerequisite `codigoSenador` (obtained via `senado_listar_senadores`) and directs users to `senado_obter_senador` for biographical data and mandates, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (fields like codigo, data, comissao, etc.), no pagination, and parameter interactions, going beyond what annotations 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?
The description is well-structured with an overview sentence, bullet-like explanation of each mode, output format details, and references to other tools. It is concise yet thorough, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three modes, 9 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: required parameters per mode, optional filters, output format, and how to obtain prerequisite data. It is fully complete given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining which parameters are required based on the 'por' value, and how optional filters like 'comissao' work. This contextual usage information is highly valuable beyond the schema.
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 'Lista votações em comissões' and explains the three modes (comissao, senador, materia) with specific requirements. It distinguishes from sibling tool senado_votos_materia for plenary votes, meeting the high standard for purpose clarity.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode, required parameters, and tells the user to obtain siglas from senado_listar_comissoes and codigoSenador from senado_listar_senadores. It also directs users to senado_votos_materia for plenary votes, offering clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already confirm readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds details: filter applied via Worker, return structure differences between tipos, limit truncation with aviso, and empty list behavior. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. No extraneous information. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all key aspects: types, filtering, limit, empty lists, return structure, and cross-reference to sibling tool. Output schema exists but description still explains shape differences, making it complete.
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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. Description adds extra context: filter applied to all fields via Worker, default limit, and truncated results. This enhances understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it lists three types of contract records (atas de registro de preço, notas de empenho, menores aprendizes) from Senado, with optional text filter. It distinguishes from sibling senado_contratacao_detalhe, which is for deeper detail.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (listing records) and when not to (for deepening a specific record, use senado_contratacao_detalhe). Also mentions behavior for empty lists, providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the endpoint only brings active commissions, regardless of the filter, and explains the return shape. No contradictions with annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and filters, then details return format and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and concise, with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return structure. It also links to sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by stating that the endpoint only returns active commissions, implying that the ativa filter is redundant if set to true, and that false yields empty. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema.
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 lists active commissions with filters for tipo and ativa, and specifies the return structure with fields like codigo, sigla, nome, tipo, casa, and ativa. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is used to discover the sigla required by senado_obter_comissao and senado_reunioes_comissao.
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?
The description explicitly says to use this tool to discover the sigla needed by senado_obter_comissao and senado_reunioes_comissao, providing clear contextual guidance. It also warns that the endpoint only returns active commissions, so setting ativa=false results in an empty list, which helps correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are aggregated (no nominal votes), ordered from most recent, and return fields like codigoSessao, data, materia, etc. No contradictions.
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?
Single paragraph organized logically: purpose, temporal constraints, other filters, return format, sibling tool reference. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Very concise for the amount of information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 optional parameters, no required, and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, filtering options, output structure, ordering, and lacking details (nominal votes). It's complete for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between 'dias' and date range parameters, and gives an example for a full year. It also lists the other filter types, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
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 'Busca e lista votações do plenário combinando critérios opcionais' (searches and lists plenary votes with optional criteria). It distinguishes itself from siblings like senado_obter_votacao (which gets details for a specific session) and senado_votacoes_senador (votes per senator) by focusing on search and listing with multiple filters.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on temporal filter exclusivity: use 'dias' for recent activity OR 'dataInicio'/'dataFim' for arbitrary periods, with an example for a full year. Also recommends senado_obter_votacao for nominal votes, giving a clear alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior consistent with annotations. Adds details on return structure, pagination (default 100, max 500, truncation warning), default ordering, and the need for at least one criterion.
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?
Single well-structured paragraph that front-loads core purpose, then provides examples, return format, sibling link, and limit details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 optional parameters, output schema, many siblings), the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, parameter guidance, return structure, pagination, and cross-reference to sibling tool. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains when to use each parameter (e.g., for recent matters), notes default order, and provides usage patterns that integrate multiple parameters.
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?
Describes exactly what the tool does: search legislative matters by type, number, year, keywords, author, date range, or status, requiring at least one criterion. Clearly differentiates from sibling senado_obter_materia by specifying when to use each.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use examples like 'matérias recentes sobre X' with suggested parameters, and when-not-to-use by stating not to call details just to list results. Clearly directs to sibling for detailed lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: aggregated vs detail mode, ordering, truncation with warning, and partial search filters. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Concise yet comprehensive. Front-loaded with purpose, then detailed return structure, filtering options, and a practical hint. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers the tool's complexity: all 8 parameters, return formats, filtering, truncation, and cross-reference to another tool. No gaps given the existing schema and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond the schema: explains default mode, limits, return shapes for different modes, and that filters support partial search. Schema coverage is 100% but description still enriches understanding.
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 returns CEAPS expenses for senators in a given year. It specifies the return structure and differentiates from other senado tools by focusing on parliamentary expense data.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including hints to obtain codSenador via senado_listar_senadores and mentions the default aggregation mode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: data persistence (corpus in D1), weekly updates, scale (thousands), inclusion of closed events, and return structure. No contradictions with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.
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?
Single paragraph, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by return format, filters, and usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value; no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all essential aspects: what is returned (count and eventos with fields), available filters (status, comissao, limite), ordering options (data, comentarios), update frequency, and hints for related actions (get event detail). Output schema exists but description still provides sufficient detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value: default limit of 20, 'comissao' as abbreviation, default order for 'ordem', and concrete examples for ordering by comments via 'ordenarPor' and 'ordem'.
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?
Clearly states it lists interactive events from e-Cidadania (audiências, sabatinas, lives) and distinguishes from sibling 'senado_ecidadania_obter_evento' for detailed retrieval. Provides context about the complete corpus and update frequency.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use this tool (listing events) and directs to a specific sibling tool for detailed event info. Also explains how to use filtering and ordering, including a ranking use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: describes the corpus size (~150k ideas), update frequency (weekly), inclusion of closed/converted ideas, and field restrictions (null for author/date in list). All consistent with readOnlyHint=true.
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?
Well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then output details, filtering, ordering, and sibling reference. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers return format (count, ideias with fields), corpus scope, update cadence, and limitations. No missing critical information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in schema (100% coverage). Description adds extra meaning by clarifying default limit (20), recommending ordering by 'apoios' for ranking, and noting which ordering fields are available in the list vs. detail.
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 it lists legislative ideas from e-Cidadania, specifying the complete corpus and distinguishing itself from the detail tool (senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia) and other list tools like senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas.
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?
Explicitly mentions when to use this tool (for listing), provides filtering and ordering guidance, and directs users to the sibling tool for full details. It also explains limitations (author and date are null in list).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that: the 30-day default and internal splitting of year-spanning ranges. No contradictions.
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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, followed by output structure and usage notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given annotations and output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, output structure, and tool chaining. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifying date format (YYYYMMDD), clarifying 'sigla' usage, and explaining date range defaults and split behavior.
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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'reuniões de uma comissão' (committee meetings). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning how to find the 'sigla' and how to get detailed agenda using related tools.
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?
The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool (lists meetings by committee and date range), when not (use senado_listar_comissoes to find sigla, senado_reuniao_comissao for details), and explains the default behavior when dates are omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that 'aviso' indicates truncation, and details return fields. No contradictions.
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?
Concise, well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains return format, third provides usage guidelines. No wasted words; essential information front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description still adds value by explaining the structure and enums. Covers all relevant aspects: filtering, truncation, and alternative tool for different purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 3 parameters have descriptions in schema (100% coverage). Description adds default behavior for 'limite', clarifies 'ano' vs 'status' mutual exclusivity, and explains status enum values beyond schema.
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 it lists presidential vetoes under consideration by the National Congress, by year or status, and specifies the return structure. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'senado_resultado_veto' used for voting results.
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?
Explicit instructions: use 'ano' OR 'status' (with enum values explained), and 'limite' for truncation. Directs to 'senado_resultado_veto' for different use case. Provides clear context for when to use this tool.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![senado-br-mcp-cloudflare MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SidneyBissoli/senado-br-mcp-cloudflare/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SidneyBissoli/senado-br-mcp-cloudflare)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![senado-br-mcp-cloudflare MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SidneyBissoli/senado-br-mcp-cloudflare/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SidneyBissoli/senado-br-mcp-cloudflare)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/SidneyBissoli/senado-br-mcp-cloudflare'

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