Skip to main content
Glama
SidneyBissoli

Senado BR — Brazilian Federal Senate Open Data

by SidneyBissoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Tabelas de referência de processos

senado_tabelas_processo
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up reference tables for Brazilian legislative process data to decode codes and abbreviations before filtering searches. Query by table name, optionally filter by text and set a row limit.

Instructions

Consulta tabelas de referência do processo legislativo para resolver códigos/siglas, conforme tabela. Domínios de entidade: siglas (siglas de proposição), assuntos, classes, destinos, entes. Domínios de tipo (código→descrição): tipos-situacao, tipos-decisao, tipos-autor, tipos-atualizacao, tipos-documento, tipos-conteudo-documento, tipos-prazo. Retorna { tabela, count, total, linhas } — count é o nº após o corte por limite e total o disponível; count < total indica truncagem (aumente limite); count 0 quando o filtro não casa. Cada linha traz código/sigla e descrição (campos conforme a API). Use antes de filtrar em senado_search_processos/senado_processo_detalhe. Para as tabelas do plenário (tipos de sessão, legislaturas) use senado_tabelas_plenario. Ex.: { tabela: 'tipos-prazo' } ou { tabela: 'siglas', filtro: 'PEC' }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filtroNoBusca textual sobre sigla/descrição; count 0 se nada casar
limiteNoMáximo de linhas (padrão 200, máx 1000); count < total sinaliza corte
tabelaYesTabela a consultar — entidades (siglas, assuntos, classes, destinos, entes) ou tipos (tipos-situacao, tipos-decisao, tipos-autor, tipos-atualizacao, tipos-documento, tipos-conteudo-documento, tipos-prazo)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 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
    • changedInput schema / properties / filtro / description
      Previous value: -"Filtro textual aplicado sobre sigla/descrição"New value: +"Busca textual sobre sigla/descrição; count 0 se nada casar"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limite / description
      Previous value: -"Máximo de linhas (padrão: 200)"New value: +"Máximo de linhas (padrão 200, máx 1000); count < total sinaliza corte"
    • changedInput schema / properties / tabela / description
      Previous value: -"Tabela de referência a consultar"New value: +"Tabela a consultar — entidades (siglas, assuntos, classes, destinos, entes) ou tipos (tipos-situacao, tipos-decisao, tipos-autor, tipos-atualizacao, tipos-documento, tipos-conteudo-documento, tipos-prazo)"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.3.3
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
  3. First observedv3.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine operational context: truncation signalling via `count < total`, `count` 0 on a non-matching filter, and the 1000-row ceiling — all useful for interpreting results.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then domain taxonomy, then return/truncation semantics, then routing and examples. It is dense and efficient, though re-listing all twelve enum values duplicates the schema and costs a line of unnecessary length.

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 need not explain returns — yet it does so anyway via `{ tabela, count, total, linhas }` and the truncation rule. Combined with domain taxonomy, routing guidance and worked examples, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the full enum and the `filtro`/`limite` semantics. The description restates the same entity-vs-type taxonomy the schema's `tabela` description already contains, so it adds little beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta tabelas de referência do processo legislativo para resolver códigos/siglas') and enumerates the exact domains available. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from senado_search_processos, senado_processo_detalhe and senado_tabelas_plenario, so an agent can place it 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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('Use antes de filtrar em senado_search_processos/senado_processo_detalhe') and routes plenary tables to senado_tabelas_plenario. However, it never addresses the near-identical sibling senado_tabelas_referencia, leaving a real misrouting risk among 60+ siblings.

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