MCP Câmara BR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists deputies related to an event, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'presentes ou relacionados' entails (e.g., attendance vs. association). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted text, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more guidance would be beneficial, but it meets the basic threshold for a simple list operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'ID do evento'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers the parameter meaning without extra value from the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lista os deputados presentes ou relacionados a um evento' (Lists deputies present or related to an event). It specifies the verb ('Lista') and resource ('deputados'), and indicates the scope ('presentes ou relacionados a um evento'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eventos_deputado' or 'detalhar_evento', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'buscar_deputados' or 'eventos_deputado', which could be relevant for similar queries. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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