Retrieve cosponsors for a specific congressional amendment by congress, type, and number. Shows party affiliation and sponsorship details.
Get cosponsors of a specific amendment. Shows party affiliation and sponsorship details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 250) | |
| congress | Yes | Congress number | |
| amendment_type | Yes | Amendment type | |
| amendment_number | Yes | Amendment number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.9.14Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +250v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some output context ('party affiliation and sponsorship details') but does not disclose pagination, limit behavior, or handling of missing cosponsors.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose and then states the value-add, making it easy to scan.
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 simple lookup the description plus schema is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it only partially describes the return shape. It also omits any mention of how to disambiguate from bill cosponsors or how results are ordered/paginated.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, and the schema descriptions are terse ('Congress number', 'Amendment type'), but they do exist and cover all parameters.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('cosponsors of a specific amendment') and adds what the response contains ('party affiliation and sponsorship details'). It is unambiguous about targeting amendments, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related congress_bill_cosponsors sibling.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like congress_bill_cosponsors (for bills) or congress_amendment_details. The description neither names alternatives nor gives selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.