Retrieve details of a specific Israeli Knesset plenum sitting or committee meeting using its session ID, including agenda, documents, protocols, and plenum votes.
One plenum sitting or committee meeting: when, which committee, the agenda items, documents (including protocols), and for plenum sittings the votes held.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | Plenum sitting or committee meeting | |
| session_id | Yes | Session Id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful content context, such as the inclusion of protocols and votes only for plenum sittings, but it does not disclose behavioral details like error handling or what happens when the session is not found.
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 compact phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core entity and uses a colon to efficiently enumerate the returned contents.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup tool, the description, schema, and annotations together provide sufficient context to select and invoke the tool. It could be strengthened by mentioning where to obtain session_id or clarifying the committee/plenum disambiguation, but nothing critical is missing for basic usage.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum values for kind. The description largely restates the kind distinction and adds that plenum sittings include votes, but it does not meaningfully expand on session_id or how the parameters interact.
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 identifies the resource as a plenum sitting or committee meeting and enumerates its contents (time, committee, agenda, documents, votes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_person or get_bill. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: if you need the details of one plenum sitting or committee meeting, this tool is appropriate. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like get_vote or get_record, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.