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 events but does not cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), usage context compared to siblings, and output format. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (e.g., 'id' for deputy ID, date ranges for filtering). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how pagination works or default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Lista os eventos de que um deputado participou' (Lists the events that a deputy participated in). It specifies the verb ('lista') and resource ('eventos'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'buscar_eventos' or 'eventos_orgao', which limits it to a 4.

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 sibling tools such as 'buscar_eventos' (which might search events broadly) or 'eventos_orgao' (which lists events by organization), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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