Senado BR — Brazilian Federal Senate Open Data

Sugerir tema de enquete

senado_ecidadania_sugerir_tema_enquete

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes open Senate consultations and citizen ideas to suggest top themes for public polls, filtering by engagement, polarization, and minimum participation.

Instructions

Sugere temas para uma enquete pública mensal (seleção de pauta): analisa o conjunto completo de consultas (abertas) e as ideias do e-Cidadania e elege as de maior engajamento cidadão, filtrando por polarização/consenso e participação mínima. Retorna { criteriosAplicados, totalAnalisados, count, totalQualificados, sugestoes } (até 10), cada sugestão com tipo (consulta/ideia), id, titulo, motivo, metricas (participação/polarização) e url, ordenadas por participação. count é o número de sugestões retornadas (≤10) e totalQualificados é quantas passaram nos critérios. Critérios opcionais em criterios: evitarPolarizacao/evitarConsenso (padrão true), minimoParticipacao (padrão 500), apenasEmTramitacao (padrão true → considera só consultas abertas, com base no status real). Para investigar uma sugestão, use senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta ou senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia conforme o tipo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`criterios`	No	Critérios de seleção do tema (polarização, consenso, participação mínima, tramitação)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.9.0Sep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed4 schema fields changedv3.3.3Jul 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / criterios / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / criterios / properties / minimoParticipacao / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
First observedv3.3.1Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the bar is met here by extra behavior: it discloses that it analyzes the full set of open consultas plus ideias, caps output at 10, filters by polarization/consensus thresholds and minimum participation, and orders results by participation. What it does not add is any note on cost, rate, or performance of the full-set analysis.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the purpose and scope lead, followed by the return shape, criteria defaults, and routing. Most sentences earn their place, though the detailed return-shape paraphrase is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 nested, single-object, zero-required-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, criteria defaults, output cardinality, ordering, and the handoff to detail tools. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly even before consulting the 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the enum stubs: it explains that `apenasEmTramitacao` (padrão true) considers only open consultas based on real status, and that `evitarPolarizacao`/`evitarConsenso` are on by default, clarifying the behavioral effect of each flag.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Sugere temas para uma enquete pública mensal") plus the exact method (analisa o conjunto completo de consultas abertas e ideias, elege as de maior engajamento, filtrando por polarização/consenso e participação mínima), so an agent can distinguish it from listing/analysis siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for use and explicitly routes follow-up investigation to `senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta` or `senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia` by `tipo`. It does not, however, state when to prefer this selector over `senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise` or `senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas`, so the exclusion side is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server