Get specific hearing details—title, date, committees, citation, and text formats—using congress, chamber, and jacket number.
Get detailed information about a specific hearing including title, date, committees, associated meeting, citation, and available text formats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chamber | Yes | Chamber | |
| congress | Yes | Congress number | |
| jacket_number | Yes | Hearing jacket 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what data is returned but does not disclose behavior like pagination, error handling, or authorization requirements. Given annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and lists the return contents. No redundant information or filler.
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 lists return fields but does not explain how to acquire the required jacket_number or mention potential error cases. With no output schema, it partially compensates but leaves the agent to infer the discovery path. Adequate for a straightforward detail lookup.
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%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('Chamber', 'Congress number', 'Hearing jacket number'). The description does not add meaning beyond these, such as explaining how jacket_number relates to congress and chamber or where to obtain it. It meets the baseline but does not enrich understanding.
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 states it retrieves detailed information about a specific hearing and enumerates the key fields (title, date, committees, etc.). It distinguishes itself from listing tools like congress_hearings by focusing on a specific hearing, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires a jacket number from a prior search, nor does it point to congress_hearings or similar tools for finding hearings. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.