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' (gets) information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned composition data. 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('obtém') and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning a high score for efficiency and structure.

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 moderate complexity (fetching board composition for a legislature), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks an output schema, so users don't know the structure of the returned data (e.g., what 'composição' includes). With no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it relies heavily on the input schema for parameter info. This makes it functional but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID da legislatura', 'Data de início (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The tool description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., if 'dataInicio' and 'dataFim' filter results within the legislature). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help 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 a composição da mesa diretora de uma legislatura' (Gets the composition of the board of directors of a legislature). It specifies the verb ('obtém' - gets) and resource ('mesa diretora de uma legislatura' - board of directors of a legislature), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_legislatura' or 'buscar_legislaturas', which might provide related but different information.

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, such as needing a specific legislature ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'detalhar_legislatura' (which might give general legislature details) or 'buscar_legislaturas' (which might list legislatures). Without this context, users must infer usage from 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.