MCP Assemblée nationale

Dossier Legislatif

dossier_legislatif

Read-onlyIdempotent

Track the full voting timeline of a French law by keywords or dossier reference, including article, motion and final votes with results, so you can follow a bill from start to finish.

Instructions

Chronologie de tous les scrutins d'un texte de loi (dossier législatif).

À utiliser pour suivre un texte de bout en bout : votes sur les articles, motions et vote sur l'ensemble, avec les résultats ; les amendements sont comptés mais non listés un à un. Accepte des mots-clés ou une référence de dossier (DLR…). Si plusieurs dossiers correspondent, le plus voté est détaillé et les autres sont proposés.

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": {
      "texte": "<texte>"
    },
    "name": "dossier_legislatif"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`texte`	Yes	Mots-clés du texte (« loi de finances 2027 ») ou référence (DLR…).

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, and the description adds real substance on top: amendments are counted but not enumerated one by one, and when multiple dossiers match, the most-voted one is detailed while the others are merely suggested. That ambiguity-resolution rule is genuinely useful and not derivable from 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, usage second, caveats and fallback last. No filler, though the parenthetical '(dossier législatif)' partially restates the title.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool it covers what is returned (vote results, counted-but-not-listed amendments) and how ties are handled. Permission or rate-limit details are unnecessary for a read-only tool with idempotent annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'texte' already documents keywords vs. DLR reference, so the description's mention of accepted inputs largely repeats the schema. It adds only the ambiguity behavior (most-voted dossier expanded), which is more output logic than parameter semantics.

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?

The opening states a specific verb+resource: the chronological list of all votes attached to a legislative text (dossier législatif). It is clearly distinguishable from single-vote retrieval (obtenir_scrutin) by the 'tous les scrutins d'un texte' scope, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'À utiliser pour suivre un texte de bout en bout' gives an explicit use case, and the amendment note sets expectations about scope. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when…' routing statement for the overlapping research tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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