filed-mcp-server

filed_search_lobbying

Search federal lobbying disclosures to identify companies, lobbyists, issues, and spending. Filter by client, registrant, issue code, filing year, or filing type.

Instructions

Search federal lobbying disclosures from the Senate LDA database. Find which companies hire lobbyists, what issues they lobby on, and how much they spend.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "filed_search_lobbying"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_name`	No	Client company being represented
`registrant_name`	No	Lobbying firm name
`issue_code`	No	Issue area code: HCR (Health), DEF (Defense), TAX (Taxation), ENV (Environment), TRD (Trade), etc.
`filing_year`	No	Filing year (e.g., '2025')
`filing_type`	No	Filing type: RR (Registration), Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 (Quarterly)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It does not mention read/write nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or any limitations, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral traits.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and output types (companies, issues, spending). It could mention that it returns filings or records, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about what can be found (companies, issues, spending) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches federal lobbying disclosures from the Senate LDA database, with specific examples of what can be found (companies, issues, spending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filed_search_contracts or filed_search_sec.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is implied through sibling names, but no direct guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server