Skip to main content
Glama
SidneyBissoli

Senado BR — Brazilian Federal Senate Open Data

senado_ecidadania_consultas_votos

Read-only

Query historical public consultation votes from e-Cidadania, with breakdown by state (UF). Filter by matter, order by total, yes, or no votes, and rank per UF.

Instructions

Acervo histórico de votos das consultas públicas do e-Cidadania, com quebra por UF (fonte: CSV Arquimedes; ~15 mil matérias, atualizado semanalmente). Diferente de senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas (consultas em tramitação): aqui o conjunto é o arquivo de matérias já consultadas — status vem como Descontinuado no arquivo de origem, por isso é tratado como acervo, não como opinião atual. Retorna { count, referencePeriod, consultas }, cada item com id, materia, ementa, autoria, votosSim/votosNao/totalVotos, votosPorUf ({ UF: { sim, nao } }) e url. Use ordenarPor (total/sim/nao, padrão total) e ordem para ranking; uf para recortar e ranquear por aquele estado (só matérias com votos na UF, e cada item ganha recorteUf); materia para filtrar por código (numérico) ou trecho do nome/ementa; limite (padrão 20).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ordenarPorNoMétrica do ranking (padrão: total de votos)total
ordemNoOrdem (padrão desc)desc
ufNoSigla da UF (ex.: SP) — filtra e ranqueia por votos daquele estado
materiaNoFiltro por código da matéria (numérico) ou trecho do nome/ementa
limiteNoNúmero máximo de resultados

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: data source (CSV Arquimedes), update frequency (weekly), special handling of 'status' field, and return structure. 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 moderately long but well-organized with bullet points. It front-loads the core purpose and differentiator. Every sentence adds value, though some details (like return shape) could be more concise. Still efficient for the complexity.

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 5 optional parameters and no required fields, the description covers all essential aspects: data type, source, update cadence, differentiation from sibling, filtering, ordering, and output structure. No gaps identified.

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%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains default for `ordenarPor`, that `uf` also enables ranking by that state, that `materia` accepts numeric or textual search, and default for `limite`. This enriches parameter 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 is a historical archive of e-Cidadania public consultation votes broken down by state. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas` which deals with ongoing consultations, making the purpose specific and unique.

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 contrasts this tool with `senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas`, providing a clear when-to-use scenario (historical data vs. ongoing consultations). It also details ordering, filtering, and ranking options, giving concrete usage guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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