MCP Assemblée nationale

Comparer Deputes

comparer_deputes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare how two named deputies voted on the same roll-call ballots, showing the share of identical positions, optionally filtered by topic or recent days.

Instructions

Compare les votes de DEUX députés nommés : part de scrutins votés de la même façon.

À utiliser pour « X et Y votent-ils pareil ? ». Calcule, sur les scrutins où les deux ont exprimé un vote, la part de positions identiques. Indiquer sujet ou periode_jours. Description factuelle d'un échantillon borné, sans jugement.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "depute_a": "<depute_a>",
      "depute_b": "<depute_b>"
    },
    "name": "comparer_deputes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sujet`	No	Sujet en mots-clés (« retraites »), avec accents.
`depute_a`	Yes	Nom du premier député ou son `uid`.
`depute_b`	Yes	Nom du second député ou son `uid`.
`legislature`	No	Législature : 17 par défaut ; les 14e, 15e et 16e sont aussi couvertes.
`max_scrutins`	No	Nombre maximal de scrutins analysés (échantillon borné).
`periode_jours`	No	Jours à analyser.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description rightly focuses on method: comparison is restricted to scrutins where both deputies actually voted, and results come from a bounded sample and are factual without judgment. That method disclosure is the value-add beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then usage trigger, then method caveat. No filler sentences; the closing phrase about 'sans jugement' is slightly editorial but still earns its place as a scope limit.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the returned measure ('part de scrutins votés de la même façon') and that it is computed over the intersection of expressed votes, which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gap: no note on sample size limits surfaced in prose despite max_scrutins defaulting to 60.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents names/uids, legislature, max_scrutins and periode_jours. The description adds only the lightweight hint that `sujet` or `periode_jours` should be supplied, without explaining interplay (e.g. what happens when both are set). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: compare the votes of exactly two named deputies and compute the share of identical positions. Clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'accords_entre_deputes', which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger case in the user's own words (« X et Y votent-ils pareil ? ») and a parameter-selection hint ('Indiquer `sujet` ou `periode_jours`'). It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to the alternative tool.

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