Skip to main content
Glama
malkreide

lobbywatch-mcp

by malkreide
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

lobbywatch_refresh_dump

Idempotent

Force a fresh download of the weekly Lobbywatch dataset to replace stale data. Returns updated cache status, so you can re-check after new declarations.

Instructions

Force re-download of the weekly Lobbywatch dump. Returns the new cache status.

Reports progress via the MCP Context (audit SDK-003) so long-running downloads (~17 MB compressed) surface useful feedback to the calling LLM and operator.

Use cases: - "Force a fresh download — the data looks stale" - "I just heard about a new declaration — refresh and re-check"

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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.
loadedYes
sourceNoData: Lobbywatch.ch — CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Not an official register; community-researched records.
cached_atNo
provenanceYesWhich endpoint / dump the payload came from
age_secondsNo
record_countNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.8
    • addedOutput schema / $defs
      Added value: +{
+  "StaleDump": {
+    "description": "The weekly dump could not be refreshed; an older cached copy answered.",
+    "properties": {
+      "age_seconds": {
+        "description": "Age of the answering copy",
+        "title": "Age Seconds",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "cached_at": {
+        "description": "When the answering copy was downloaded (UTC, ISO 8601)",
+        "title": "Cached At",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "reason": {
+        "description": "Why the refresh failed",
+        "title": "Reason",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "cached_at",
+      "age_seconds",
+      "reason"
+    ],
+    "title": "StaleDump",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / stale
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: progress reporting via MCP Context, the ~17 MB compressed payload size, and that it is long-running – helping an agent anticipate a slow call.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The core action and its return are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with operational detail and use cases following. Nothing is padded; the quoted examples are compact and aid routing.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly defers to it while noting 'returns the new cache status'. It covers behavior, size, and progress feedback; only the expected wall-clock duration or blocking behavior is left 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Force re-download of the weekly Lobbywatch dump') and adds the scoping detail that it is weekly and a full re-download. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling lobbywatch_dump_status, so an agent must infer that this mutates the cache while the sibling only reports it.

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 two quoted use cases ('data looks stale', 'new declaration — refresh and re-check') give clear triggering conditions. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. check lobbywatch_dump_status first to see if a refresh is even needed) and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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