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. It mentions the tool lists valid types with specific fields (acronym, name, description), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence ('Lista os tipos de matérias legislativas válidos...') and adds a brief usage note in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (simple list operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and hints at usage, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format or limitations. For a parameterless tool, this is adequate but leaves room for more context on how the output is structured or any constraints.

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 tool has 0 parameters, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's output and usage, earning a baseline score of 4 for not overcomplicating a parameterless tool.

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 os tipos de matérias legislativas válidos com sigla, nome completo e descrição' (Lists valid legislative matter types with acronym, full name, and description). It specifies the verb 'lista' (lists) and resource 'tipos de matérias legislativas' (legislative matter types), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_buscar_materias' or 'senado_obter_materia', which might handle specific matters rather than types.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Útil para usar em buscas' (Useful for use in searches). This suggests when to use the tool (to support searches), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before 'senado_buscar_materias' or as a standalone reference.

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