Skip to main content
Glama
lzinga

US Government Open Data MCP

by lzinga

congress_treaty_partitioned_actions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve committee referrals, hearings, and ratification votes for a partitioned treaty by congress, treaty number, and suffix letter.

Instructions

Get actions on a partitioned treaty (one with a suffix letter). Shows committee referral, hearings, and ratification votes for a specific treaty partition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default: 50)
congressYesCongress number
treaty_numberYesTreaty document number
treaty_suffixYesTreaty partition letter (e.g., 'A', 'B')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2026.9.14
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Added value: +50
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2026.4.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv2026.3.9

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 is returned (committee referral, hearings, votes) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and a second sentence listing output content. Zero waste, every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose and output content adequately. It lacks detail on response structure, but the annotations convey safety and the schema fully documents parameters. For a read-only list tool, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'partitioned treaty' but that is already captured in treaty_suffix. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get actions on a partitioned treaty') and adds the key condition (suffix letter) and the content types (committee referral, hearings, ratification votes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_treaty_partitioned_details and provides precise scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the intended use case (partitioned treaties with a suffix letter) and clearly defines the scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'explicit exclusions' bar for a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools