resumo_brasilRetrieve official partial national results for Brazil's presidential election by round and optional year, showing vote totals from TSE data.
Resultado parcial oficial para presidente, total nacional. turno 1 ou 2; ano opcional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ano | No | ||
| turno | No | ||
| limite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'parcial oficial' and national, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'limite' controls. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but safety and pagination context are absent.
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?
Two telegraphic fragments with no wasted words; purpose is front-loaded before parameter hints. The brevity suits a simple lookup tool, and nothing extraneous is included.
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?
Output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: 'limite' is unexplained, usage versus sibling tools is only implied, and behavioral traits like pagination or authentication are absent. Adequate for basic invocation, but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a meaningful constraint for 'turno' (1 or 2) and notes that 'ano' is optional, but completely omits 'limite', leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and 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?
States the resource precisely: official partial result for president, national total. Distinguishes from generic 'resultado' and 'municipio' siblings by specifying president/national scope. Lacks an explicit action verb but the title and noun phrase make the operation unambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The scope ('para presidente, total nacional') implies the appropriate context and differentiates from sibling tools, but no alternatives or exclusions are named. Parameter constraints (turno, ano) are not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.