US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (committee name, system code, chamber) and implying a default limit (though 'limit' param details are in schema). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details (filtering, returns). Every word contributes essential information with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, filtering, and return fields. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior or error handling, which could be useful for an agent despite annotations covering safety.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'congress number and/or chamber', which maps to parameters but adds no extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('List'), resource ('congressional committees'), and scope ('Filter by congress number and/or chamber'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its unique focus on committees, unlike other tools for bills, members, or hearings.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by mentioning filtering options (congress number, chamber). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data, such as 'congress_committee_details' or 'congress_committee_full_profile' from the sibling list.

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