Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Assemblée nationale

MCP Assemblée nationale

by Toumi-Elyes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Positions Groupes

positions_groupes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Show each parliamentary group’s majority position (for, against, abstention, split) across roll-call votes on a topic or legislative dossier.

Instructions

Tableau des positions majoritaires de chaque groupe sur les scrutins d'un sujet.

À utiliser pour voir d'un coup d'œil comment les groupes parlementaires ont voté sur un thème ou un texte : pour chaque scrutin correspondant, la position majoritaire de chaque groupe (pour, contre, abstention, ou partagée). Indiquer sujet ou dossier. legislature (14 à 17) limite la recherche à une législature.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "positions_groupes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sujetNoSujet en mots-clés (« retraites »), avec accents.
dossierNoRéférence d'un dossier législatif (DLR…), à la place de `sujet`.
legislatureNoLégislature analysée, de 14 (2012) à 17 (en cours). Sans valeur : un sujet est cherché dans les titres publiés par CIVIX (16e et 17e), une période compte les derniers jours.
max_scrutinsNoScrutins analysés.
type_scrutinNoType de scrutin : `texte` (vote sur l'ensemble d'un texte), `article`, `amendement`, `autre` (motions, résolutions, suspensions de séance…) ou `tous`.tous

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the exact output vocabulary (pour/contre/abstention/partagée) and the default scoping behavior of `legislature` (keyword search limited to CIVIX-published 16th/17th legislature titles when omitted). It does not mention volume or cost behavior implied by `max_scrutins`.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage then parameter guidance – a sensible order with no filler. Slightly verbose in the usage sentence, which re-explains the output already stated above.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape precisely (one row per matching scrutin, one majority position per group), so an agent knows what to expect. For a 5-parameter, zero-required read tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 every parameter including the CIVIX default rule and the DLR pattern is already documented structurally. The description only restates that `sujet` and `dossier` are alternatives and that `legislature` narrows the search – useful emphasis, but not information the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 description names a concrete artifact (a table of each parliamentary group's majority position per scrutin on a given topic) and states the selection inputs. It is clearly distinct from vote-level siblings like votes_scrutin, but it never names cohesion_groupes or accords_entre_groupes, which produce related group-level aggregates, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 voir d'un coup d'œil comment les groupes parlementaires ont voté sur un thème ou un texte' gives a clear usage context, and 'Indiquer `sujet` ou `dossier`' supplies the selection rule. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at an alternative tool for related needs.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools