Skip to main content
Glama
SidneyBissoli

Senado BR — Brazilian Federal Senate Open Data

by SidneyBissoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Listar blocos parlamentares

senado_listar_blocos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all Senate parliamentary blocs and their party members, including historical affiliations, to obtain bloc codes for further details via the bloc endpoint.

Instructions

Lista todos os blocos parlamentares do Senado e seus partidos membros. Retorna { count, blocos }, onde cada bloco traz codigo, nome, nomeApelido, dataCriacao, dataExtincao e a lista partidos (cada um com sigla, nome, dataAdesao, dataDesligamento). A lista inclui a composição HISTÓRICA de cada bloco: partido com dataDesligamento preenchida já saiu (a composição atual são os com dataDesligamento null) e o mesmo partido pode repetir com períodos de adesão distintos — sem esse filtro um partido parece estar em 2 blocos ao mesmo tempo. Use para descobrir o codigo de um bloco e depois detalhá-lo via senado_obter_bloco; para lideranças use senado_liderancas.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.9.0
    • 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"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.3.3
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
  3. First observedv3.3.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the list is HISTORICAL, a filled 'dataDesligamento' means the party left, current composition is entries with null 'dataDesligamento', and the same party may appear repeatedly across distinct adhesion periods. It even warns that without this filter a party looks like it belongs to two blocos at once — a genuine misinterpretation trap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the caveat, then routing — a sensible order. Slightly redundant to enumerate '{ count, blocos }' and all block fields when an output schema already exists, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything left over: the historical-composition gotcha and the follow-up tools. Nothing needed to invoke or correctly interpret it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema, additionalProperties false), so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add; the description instead spends its budget on response semantics, which is the right trade-off.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Lista todos os blocos parlamentares do Senado e seus partidos membros') and immediately distinguishes itself from senado_obter_bloco (single-block detail) and senado_liderancas (leadership). The response envelope '{ count, blocos }' with the field list makes the scope 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?

Explicit routing: use this to discover a bloco's 'codigo' and then call senado_obter_bloco for detail, and use senado_liderancas for leadership data. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance an agent needs.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools