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 it's a listing operation ('Lista'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors such as pagination, error handling, or data format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic purpose.

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 in Portuguese that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted language, and it fits well within typical length expectations for tool descriptions.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more guidance on what to expect, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple listing tool.

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 one parameter 'id' documented as 'ID da votação' (voting ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing hints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers the parameter details 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: 'Lista os votos de deputados em uma votação específica' (Lists the votes of deputies in a specific voting). It specifies the verb ('Lista'), resource ('votos de deputados'), and scope ('em uma votação específica'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_votacao' or 'votacoes_evento', 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 (e.g., needing a voting ID from another tool), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'detalhar_votacao' (which might give voting details without votes) or 'historico_votos_deputado' (which focuses on a deputy's vote history). This lack of context could lead to misuse.

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