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. While 'Obtém detalhes' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the details are returned in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.

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 apparent simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it versus siblings, behavioral details, or output expectations. For a read operation with good schema coverage, it meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in guidance and transparency.

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 single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'ID do órgão' (ID of the body). The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or valid ranges. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Obtém detalhes' - Gets details) and resource ('de um órgão específico da Câmara' - of a specific Chamber body), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_orgaos' (which likely lists multiple bodies) or 'orgaos_deputado' (which might list bodies related to a deputy), but the specificity of 'detalhar' (detail) versus 'buscar' (search/find) provides some implicit 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. There are multiple sibling tools that involve 'orgaos' (bodies), such as 'buscar_orgaos' (likely for listing), 'orgaos_deputado' (bodies of a deputy), and 'eventos_orgao' (events of a body), but the description doesn't indicate when this detailed view is appropriate versus those other tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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