senado-br-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for a listing tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields returned), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'status' filters by status, 'ordenarPor' specifies ordering field). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not exceptional coverage.

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 ('ideias legislativas propostas por cidadãos no e-Cidadania'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_ideias_populares' or 'senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to e-Cidadania ideas (e.g., 'senado_ecidadania_ideias_populares' for popular ideas, 'senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia' for getting a specific idea), the agent receives no help in selecting between them, leaving this dimension inadequate.

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