mcp-camara-pecs

listar_votos_votacao

Retrieve each deputy's roll-call vote details for a specific voting ID, including name, party, state, and vote type (yes/no/abstention). Use to analyze individual positions on PEC votes. Symbolic votes return an empty list.

Instructions

Lista o voto nominal de cada deputado em uma votação.

Cada item traz o nome do deputado, partido, UF e o `tipoVoto`
(Sim/Não/Abstenção/Obstrução/Artigo etc.). Só há votos nominais em votações
por registro eletrônico (votações simbólicas retornam lista vazia).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`max_itens`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses an important edge case (symbolic votings return empty) and describes the content of each item. It stops short of covering auth, ordering, or pagination behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the returned item fields, and the symbolic-voting caveat. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, item shape, and the key edge case; the output schema handles return fields. However, the 0% schema parameter coverage and lack of explicit parameter explanation leave `max_itens` and alternative routing incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly define `id` or `max_itens`. `id` is inferable as the voting ID from 'em uma votação', but `max_itens` is left entirely to inference, including what it caps and whether it controls pagination.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb ('Lista') and a precise resource: the nominal vote of each deputy in a given voting. It lists the returned fields (deputy name, party, UF, tipoVoto), which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like listar_votacoes_pec or listar_orientacoes_votacao.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when the tool is useful by stating that only electronic-record votings have nominal votes and symbolic votings return an empty list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling tool, so the guidance is present but implicit.

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

Deploy Server