Retrieve Senate communications referred to a specific committee by committee code. Use this tool to access official communications for oversight and research.
Get Senate communications referred to a specific Senate committee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| committee_code | Yes | Senate committee system code (e.g., 'ssfr00') |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or response shape, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 sentence with no filler and the resource is front-loaded. It loses a point for minor redundancy ('Senate' repeated) and for not adding any distinguishing detail beyond the tool name.
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 read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward resource name make this a minor gap.
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%: committee_code is documented with an example ('ssfr00') and limit has default/max constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Senate communications referred to a specific Senate committee'), which is clear and distinguishes it from House committee communications. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate among related siblings like congress_senate_communications or congress_committee_house_communications.
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 scope 'referred to a specific Senate committee' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives. With many communication-related sibling tools, more explicit routing would improve this dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.