Skip to main content
Glama
malkreide

lobbywatch-mcp

by malkreide
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

lobbywatch_get_ranking

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank Swiss parliamentarians by interest ties or full-time mandates, filtered by party or commission, to identify top members for transparency analysis.

Instructions

Rank parliamentarians by a criterion.

Args: kriterium: One of "anzahl_interessenbindungen", "anzahl_hauptberuflich". kommission: Optional commission abbreviation filter (e.g. "WBK-N"). partei: Optional party filter (e.g. "SP", "SVP", "Mitte"). limit: Top-N to return (1–100).

Use cases: - "Top 10 SP MPs by total mandate count" - "Which Mitte-Fraktion members have the most full-time mandates?" - "Rank WBK-N by IB count — who's most involved?"

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
parteiNo
kriteriumNoanzahl_interessenbindungen
kommissionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
staleNoSet only when the dump could not be refreshed and an older cached copy answered instead. The data may miss changes made since `stale.cached_at` — say so when relaying it.
sourceNoData: Lobbywatch.ch — CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Not an official register; community-researched records.
eintraegeNo
kriteriumYes
provenanceYesWhich endpoint / dump the payload came from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.8
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / StaleDump
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The weekly dump could not be refreshed; an older cached copy answered.",
+  "properties": {
+    "age_seconds": {
+      "description": "Age of the answering copy",
+      "title": "Age Seconds",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "cached_at": {
+      "description": "When the answering copy was downloaded (UTC, ISO 8601)",
+      "title": "Cached At",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "description": "Why the refresh failed",
+      "title": "Reason",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "cached_at",
+    "age_seconds",
+    "reason"
+  ],
+  "title": "StaleDump",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / stale
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/StaleDump"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Set only when the dump could not be refreshed and an older cached copy answered instead. The data may miss changes made since `stale.cached_at` — say so when relaying it."
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that kriterium is restricted to two values and that filters can be combined, but says nothing about ordering direction, tie-breaking, or behavior of defaults beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact Arg list and three terse examples. Every element earns its place, though the labeled sections add slight overhead relative to the amount of content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all four parameters plus the two enum values receive coverage. Combined with annotations covering idempotency and safety, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only ordering/ranking semantics remain unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it names each of the four parameters, gives examples for kommission ('WBK-N') and partei ('SP', 'SVP', 'Mitte'), and the use cases disambiguate the opaque enum values (e.g. 'night-most full-time mandates' for anzahl_hauptberuflich). It still does not explain the full semantics of anzahl_interessenbindungen beyond 'IB count'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank parliamentarians by a criterion'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_parlamentarier or list_interessenbindungen. It does not explicitly name or contrast against those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use cases' block gives three concrete scenarios that show when the tool applies (ranking by mandate count, filtering by party, filtering by commission), which is clear context. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative sibling, so no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools