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 output includes 'placar e votos nominais quando disponíveis' (score and nominal votes when available), which hints at partial data availability. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the codigoMateria is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that states the purpose and key output details. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Obtém resultado de votações') and adds necessary qualification ('quando disponíveis'). There's no wasted verbiage.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of placar, votos nominais), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that fetches voting data, more context on output and usage is needed to be complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with codigoMateria documented as 'Código único da matéria' (unique code of the matter). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Obtém resultado de votações de uma matéria' (Gets voting results for a matter). It specifies the resource (votações/matéria) and the output (placar e votos nominais). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_obter_votacao' or 'senado_listar_votacoes', which likely serve different purposes.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for historical votes, current votes, or how it differs from 'senado_obter_votacao' (which might fetch a specific vote) or 'senado_listar_votacoes' (which might list multiple votes).

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