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 behavioral context by mentioning the ability to filter or list recent issues, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (e.g., the 'limit' parameter default and max), leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 and follows with usage guidance. It consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage, and annotations provide safety info. However, it could benefit from more detail on output format or behavioral constraints, but with annotations and high schema coverage, it is largely adequate.

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 parameters (volume_number, issue_number, limit) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by volume and issue number, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get daily Congressional Record issues with sections (Senate, House, Extensions of Remarks, Daily Digest).' It specifies the resource (Congressional Record issues) and the action (get), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_congressional_record' or 'congress_bound_congressional_record', which appear to be related. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 usage context: 'Filter by volume and issue number for specific issues, or list recent issues.' This indicates when to use the tool (for specific or recent issues) and implies an alternative approach within the same tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives, such as other Congressional Record tools in the list.

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