US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return content (history, URL, subcommittees, counts, communications), which helps the agent understand the data richness. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists return details. Every element earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return content. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response structure or data formats, though the listed return fields provide good guidance.

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 clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'chamber'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'chamber and committee code' and providing an example ('hspw00', 'ssju00'), but doesn't explain parameter relationships or constraints not already in 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 clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific congressional committee'), specifying the scope ('by chamber and committee code') and listing key return fields ('full history, website URL, subcommittees, bill/report counts, and related communications'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'congress_committees' (likely a list tool) and 'congress_committee_full_profile' (possibly broader).

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 usage when detailed committee information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'congress_committee_full_profile' or 'congress_committee_details_by_congress'. It mentions the required parameters but doesn't state prerequisites or exclusions.

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