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 specifying the type of information returned (e.g., actions like committee referral, hearing, vote), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential limitations like data availability, rate limits, or error conditions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 included actions. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and effective for quick understanding.

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 (read-only with specific data retrieval), annotations cover safety, and schema fully documents inputs. The description adds meaningful context about the output content (actions details). However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return structure or data formats, slightly reducing completeness.

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 descriptions for 'congress' and 'nomination_number'. The description does not add extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples or format clarifications (e.g., PN number format). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters without additional value from the description.

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' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific presidential nomination', specifying the scope with 'including all actions (committee referral, hearing, vote, confirmation/rejection)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'congress_nominations' (likely a list) and 'congress_nomination_full_profile' (possibly broader), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 for retrieving details of a specific nomination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_nomination_full_profile' or 'congress_nominations'. It provides context (e.g., for actions tracking) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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