senado-br-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it lists events without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'interativos' entails operationally. It mentions event types but doesn't clarify if this affects output format or availability.

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 in Portuguese that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool with clear parameters.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or how 'interativos' influences results, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and output.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying filtering by event types, which doesn't directly map to the schema parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Lista') and resource ('eventos interativos do e-Cidadania'), specifying the types of events (audiências públicas, sabatinas, lives). It distinguishes from general event tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'senado_ecidadania_eventos_populares', which might have overlapping scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'senado_ecidadania_eventos_populares' or 'senado_ecidadania_obter_evento'. The description implies it's for listing interactive events but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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