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 generates a ranking but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it returns a list or summary, if it's paginated or limited, what the output format is (e.g., JSON with fields like name and count), or any performance considerations (e.g., time range limits). For a ranking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Gera ranking') and includes all key elements (resource and criteria). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a ranking tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., what fields are returned, format), behavioral aspects like sorting or limits, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 in Portuguese. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the meaning of 'quantidade', 'aprovadas', or 'tramitacao' in more detail). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Gera ranking de deputados por quantidade de proposições apresentadas, aprovadas ou em tramitação' (Generates ranking of deputies by quantity of propositions presented, approved, or in progress). It specifies the verb ('gera ranking'), resource ('deputados'), and criteria ('proposições apresentadas, aprovadas ou em tramitação'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ranking_partidos_tamanho' or 'analise_presenca_deputado', which also involve rankings or analyses of deputies.

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 sibling tools like 'ranking_partidos_tamanho' (for party size rankings) or 'analise_presenca_deputado' (for deputy presence analysis), nor does it specify prerequisites, such as needing deputy IDs or years for filtering. Usage is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated.

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