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 members, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), what the output format is, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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: 'Lista os membros (deputados) de um partido.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without redundancy. This is an example of optimal 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters), what the output looks like (e.g., list of deputies with details), or how date ranges and legislature IDs affect results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'id' as party ID, 'dataInicio' as start date). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., date ranges filter members by time). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 membros (deputados) de um partido' (Lists the members (deputies) of a party). It specifies the verb ('Lista') and resource ('membros (deputados) de um partido'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_deputados' (search deputies) or 'detalhar_deputado' (detail deputy), which might have overlapping functionality.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'buscar_deputados' or 'detalhar_deputado', leaving the agent to infer usage context based on the tool name and description alone.

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