Skip to main content
Glama
amurshak

CongressMCP-full

by amurshak

Get Committee Nominations - Nominations referred to a specific committee

get_committee_nominations

Retrieve nominations referred to a specific congressional committee using its official code, with options to paginate and sort by most recent.

Instructions

Get nominations referred to a specific committee.

Args:
    ctx: Context for API requests
    committee_code: Official committee code (e.g., 'HSJU', 'SSJU')
    limit: Maximum number of nominations to return
    offset: Starting record (0-based) for explicit paging.
    most_recent: When True (default), return the newest nominations first.

Returns:
    List of nominations referred to the committee

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
most_recentNo
committee_codeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when success is false: the section-9 error envelope
itemsNoResults of other kinds (bills, reports, communications, nominations), as returned by Congress.gov
contextYesContext about the search or operation performed
membersNoMember results
successYesWhether the operation was successful
summaryYesHuman-readable summary of the results
item_kindNoWhat `items` contains (bill, committee_report, communication, nomination, ...)
operationYesThe operation that was performed
committeesNoCommittee results
results_countYesNumber of items returned (equals the populated list's length)
Install Server

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool returns a list, orders by most_recent by default, and supports offset-based paging, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, authentication requirements, or failure modes, though 'Get' strongly implies a read operation.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the core purpose and every line adds useful information, with only minor boilerplate like 'ctx' being unnecessary for an agent.

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?

Given the low complexity, existence of an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention how to find valid committee codes or note API limits, but those are not essential gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains committee_code with concrete examples, limit as a maximum count, offset as 0-based paging, and most_recent default sorting behavior, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('nominations referred to a specific committee'), and the title reinforces the committee scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_committee_bills or voting_and_nominations, though the resource is distinct enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like search_committees for finding valid committee codes. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/amurshak/congressMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server