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 this is a listing operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it's non-destructive or has rate limits. It also doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space on repetition or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the return structure (e.g., what data is listed), behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, and differentiation from similar tools. For a listing tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'ID do órgão', 'Data de início (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'idProposicao' filters results) or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the 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 'Lista as votações de um órgão da Câmara' clearly states the action (list) and resource (votações/votes of an órgão/organ), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'votacoes_evento' (votes of an event) or 'votacoes_proposicao' (votes of a proposition), which have similar listing functions for different entities.

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 'votacoes_evento' or 'votacoes_proposicao' that might serve similar purposes for different contexts, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond the implied need for an organ ID.

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