Retrieve House communications referred to a specific committee using its system code. Access official congressional records for oversight and research.
Get House communications referred to a specific House committee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| committee_code | Yes | House committee system code (e.g., 'hsgo00') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.9.14Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +20v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filtering behavior but does not disclose pagination via limit, response shape, sorting, or any additional runtime behavior beyond what annotations already convey.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the verb, resource, and scope with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key qualifier 'referred to a specific House committee' appears immediately.
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 two-parameter read-only tool, the core information is present, but the description does not explain the output behavior since there is no output schema, nor does it clarify the relationship to sibling communication tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent without a full picture of the result or selection criteria.
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%, and both parameters — committee_code and limit — already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('House communications') and the filter ('referred to a specific House committee'). This is enough to recognize it as a committee-scoped variant of congress_house_communications, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate the related sibling tools.
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 phrase 'referred to a specific House committee' implies the intended use case: retrieving communications for a particular committee. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over congress_house_communications or congress_committee_senate_communications, and no exclusion criteria are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.