Identify the congressional committees assigned to a treaty using its Congress number and treaty document number. Returns committee details like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Get committees associated with a treaty. Typically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| congress | Yes | Congress number | |
| treaty_number | Yes | Treaty document 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 provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a slight behavioral hint about typical output but does not cover pagination, return format, or possible empty results. With annotations covering the main concerns, this is adequate but not enriched.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical note about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is brief and relevant, adding value without rhetorical waste.
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 lookup with two documented required parameters and safety annotations, the description plus schema provide enough information to call the tool correctly. The lack of any output format description or connection to related treaty tools leaves a small gap, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.
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% – both 'congress' and 'treaty_number' already have descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about parameter formats, relationships, or examples, so it relies entirely on the schema for parameter 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get committees associated with a treaty.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like congress_treaty_details (treaty details) and congress_committees (committee list) by focusing on the association. The extra note about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adds useful domain context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 about when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., congress_treaty_details or congress_treaty_full_profile). There are no exclusions or conditions mentioned. The 'Typically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee' comment is an outcome expectation rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.