senado-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only listing operation but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 states the core functionality upfront. It wastes no words but could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on date ranges, or how it differs from similar voting-related tools. For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, more contextual information would be helpful for the agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning filtering by year, month, or period but not providing additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Lista votações do plenário do Senado' (lists plenary votes in the Senate). It specifies the resource (votações/plenário) and action (listar), and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_votacoes_recentes' or 'senado_votacoes_senador', 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 minimal usage guidance, mentioning filtering by year, month, or specific period. It doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'senado_votacoes_recentes' (recent votes) or 'senado_votacoes_senador' (votes by senator), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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