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 'obtém detalhes' (gets details), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what details are returned, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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: 'Obtém detalhes de uma frente parlamentar específica.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context. For a basic lookup tool, this might suffice, but it does not provide a complete picture for effective use, especially without annotations to fill in behavioral gaps.

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 da frente' (ID of the front). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics 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: 'Obtém detalhes de uma frente parlamentar específica' (Gets details of a specific parliamentary front). It specifies the verb 'obtém' (gets) and the resource 'frente parlamentar' (parliamentary front), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_frentes' (search fronts) or 'membros_frente' (front members), which could imply similar functionality, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an ID from another tool like 'buscar_frentes', or compare it to siblings like 'detalhar_bloco' (detail block) or 'membros_frente' (front members). Without such context, users may struggle to select the correct tool among related options.

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