US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Get'), it aggregates data from four endpoints in parallel (implying efficiency but potential complexity), and it returns a comprehensive profile. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or response format details, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and ideal scenarios. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second when to use it, and the third provides context for application. There is no wasted text.

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 complexity (aggregating four endpoints) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by explaining the scope and use cases. However, it doesn't detail the response structure or potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, error cases), leaving some gaps for an agent to operate fully independently.

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 adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain committee_code format or limit implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('COMPLETE committee profile'), specifying it combines four endpoints (details, bills, reports, nominations) in parallel. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the four individual tools it replaces (congress_committee_details, congress_committee_bills, congress_committee_reports_for_committee, congress_committee_nominations_for_committee).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this instead of calling... individually') and when not to (implicitly, when you only need one component). It names specific alternatives to avoid and includes an 'Ideal for' section that clarifies the use case (understanding jurisdiction, workload, oversight activity with cross-referencing suggestions).

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