Find which committees reviewed a bill and their actions, including referral, hearings, markup, and reporting dates.
Get committees a bill was referred to, with activity dates. Shows which committees had jurisdiction and what actions they took (referral, hearings, markup, reporting).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| congress | Yes | Congress number | |
| bill_type | Yes | Bill type | |
| bill_number | Yes | Bill number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds context about the content (activity dates, actions) but does not describe response format, pagination, or any edge cases. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds valuable detail about what is shown. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with three well-documented parameters and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output (committees, activity dates, actions) adequately. However, without an output schema and given the dense sibling landscape, a brief note on return structure or a pointer to a related tool would make it more complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without needing to compensate.
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 a specific resource (committees a bill was referred to) and elaborates on what it returns (jurisdiction and actions like referral, hearings, markup, reporting). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as congress_committee_bills (bills for a committee) and congress_bill_actions (all actions on a bill).
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 implies when to use it (when you need committee referral info for a bill) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like congress_bill_actions or congress_committee_bills. With many similar congress_* siblings, explicit routing would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.