senado-br-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'obtém' (gets) data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data (especially since there's no output schema). For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly noting it's for plenary vs. committee agendas).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving session agendas with date filtering), the description is minimally complete. It clarifies the scope (plenary sessions, including voting matters) but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not fully compensate for these gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Data específica (YYYYMMDD)'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining date range logic or parameter interactions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Obtém agenda de sessões do plenário do Senado, incluindo pauta com matérias a serem votadas' (Gets the plenary session agenda of the Senate, including the schedule with matters to be voted on). It specifies the verb 'obtém' (gets) and resource 'agenda de sessões do plenário do Senado' (plenary session agenda of the Senate), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'senado_agenda_comissoes' (which likely gets committee agendas).

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'senado_agenda_comissoes' or other agenda-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage.

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