Find and filter congressional hearings by congress and chamber to access formal committee testimony.
List congressional hearings. Filter by congress and chamber. Hearings are formal proceedings where committees gather testimony from witnesses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| chamber | No | Chamber | |
| congress | No | Congress number |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that filtering by congress and chamber is supported, and gives helpful domain context about hearings, but does not disclose pagination, result shape, or other behavioral details.
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 a clear, front-loaded imperative instruction. The second sentence defining hearings is optional context but not wasteful, keeping the description appropriately sized.
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 list tool with optional parameters and full schema coverage, this description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what the tool lists and the key filters, though it could benefit from a brief note distinguishing it from hearing_details.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only restates that congress and chamber can be used as filters, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource: 'List congressional hearings', which clearly identifies the operation. It briefly distinguishes from related siblings like congress_hearing_details by focusing on listing rather than details, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
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 its use: to list hearings, optionally filtered by congress and chamber. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as congress_hearing_details or congress_nomination_hearings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.