Retrieve official Congressional Record issues by year, month, and day to access debate, speeches, and proceedings.
Get Congressional Record issues — the official daily record of debate, speeches, and proceedings in Congress. Filter by year, month, and day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | Day of month | |
| year | No | Year (e.g., 2024) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| month | No | Month (1-12) |
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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the record is the 'official daily record,' but this is more about purpose than behavior; it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or return structure beyond what annotations imply.
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 action and core filtering capability. However, it could be improved by adding a note about the existence of daily/bound siblings, which would make it more useful without much extra length.
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?
The description is adequate for understanding the basic function, but it lacks explicit guidance on choosing among the congressional record variants (daily, bound, and this general one), which are present in the sibling list. Since there is no output schema, the description also does not clarify the return structure, leaving the tool slightly incomplete for an agent.
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%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Day of month', 'Year (e.g., 2024)'). The tool description only reiterates filtering by year, month, and day, adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving Congressional Record issues, the official daily record of debate, speeches, and proceedings in Congress. It names the resource and the verb, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like congress_daily_congressional_record or congress_bound_congressional_record, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the daily or bound congressional record siblings. It only mentions filter capabilities (year, month, day) without explaining what makes this endpoint the right choice, leaving an agent to guess among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.