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 'lista' (list) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior (implied by 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the historical data is returned in. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (historical data format), how pagination works, what happens when date ranges are specified, or any behavioral constraints. The single sentence description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 description doesn't provide any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. However, since schema description coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions in Portuguese), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add value regarding parameter usage, constraints, or relationships between parameters like 'dataInicio' and 'dataFim'.

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 o histórico de tramitações de uma proposição' (Lists the history of proceedings of a proposition). It specifies the verb ('lista' - list) and resource ('tramitações de uma proposição' - proceedings of a proposition), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resumo_tramitacao_proposicao' or 'timeline_tramitacao', which likely provide similar or 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. There are multiple sibling tools related to propositions (e.g., 'buscar_proposicoes', 'detalhar_proposicao', 'resumo_tramitacao_proposicao', 'timeline_tramitacao'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those other options.

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