André — Analyse électorale française

Élus de la République

query_elus

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and list French elected officials by mandate type, department, or name using the BRÉF database.

Instructions

Requête les élus de la République française (base BRÉF).

Actions : search_elu, list_mandate_types, list_elus.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "query_elus"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`search_term`	No
`mandate_type`	No
`departement_code`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds 'Requête' which matches read-only behavior, but provides no additional context such as output format, pagination, or rate limits. Minimal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short but critically omits necessary details. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence is present but insufficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and availability of an output schema, the description should explain parameter usage and return structure. It does not, leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only lists action names but fails to explain parameters like search_term, mandate_type, departement_code. No semantic enrichment beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool queries 'élus de la République française' (specific resource) and lists three actions, but does not differentiate them. Purpose is clear but lacks distinction between sibling query tools like query_elections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_elections). The actions are listed but without explanation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

Deploy Server