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 mentions avoiding polarized or consensual themes, which gives some insight into the tool's filtering logic, but fails to describe critical aspects such as data sources, processing time, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key behavioral constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (involving analysis and suggestion with configurable criteria), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait, but omits details on data sources, result format, and error conditions, which are important for a tool with such functionality. It is adequate but has clear 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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema by explaining the purpose of the criteria ('baseado em critérios configuráveis') and the avoidance of polarized/consensual themes, which aligns with the schema's 'evitarPolarizacao' and 'evitarConsenso' parameters. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by clarifying the intent behind the parameters, though it does not detail all four nested properties explicitly.

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: 'Analisa e sugere temas para enquete mensal baseado em critérios configuráveis' (Analyzes and suggests themes for monthly polls based on configurable criteria). It specifies the verb ('analisa e sugere'), resource ('temas para enquete mensal'), and scope ('baseado em critérios configuráveis'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais' or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas' that might handle similar data.

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 some implied usage context by stating 'Evita temas muito polarizados ou com consenso total' (Avoids highly polarized or fully consensual themes), which hints at when to use it—for generating balanced poll topics. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais' or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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