Skip to main content
Glama
narumiruna

Taiwan Legislative Yuan MCP Server

get_legislator_propose_bills

Retrieve bills proposed by legislators in Taiwan's Legislative Yuan. Filter by term, name, bill status, type, and other parameters to access detailed legislative proposal data.

Instructions

取得委員為提案人的法案列表。

Args:
    term: 屆,例:11
    name: 委員姓名,例:韓國瑜
    bill_term: 議案所屬屆期,例:11
    session: 議案所屬會期,例:2
    bill_flow_status: 議案流程狀態,如:交付審查、三讀
    bill_type: 議案類別,如:法律案、預算案
    proposer: 提案人姓名
    cosigner: 連署人姓名
    law_number: 法律編號
    bill_status: 議案狀態,如:交付審查、三讀、排入院會
    meeting_code: 會議代碼
    proposal_source: 提案來源,如:委員提案、政府提案
    bill_number: 議案編號
    proposal_number: 提案編號
    reference_number: 字號
    article_number: 法條編號
    proposal_date: 提案日期,格式:YYYY-MM-DD
    page: 頁數,預設1
    limit: 每頁筆數,預設20,建議不超過100
    output_fields: 自訂回傳欄位(如需指定欄位,請填寫欄位名稱列表)

Returns:
    str: JSON 格式的委員為提案人的法案列表。

Raises:
    例外時回傳中文錯誤訊息字串。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYes屆,例:11
nameYes委員姓名,例:韓國瑜
bill_termNo議案所屬屆期,例:11
sessionNo議案所屬會期,例:2
bill_flow_statusNo議案流程狀態,如:交付審查、三讀
bill_typeNo議案類別,如:法律案、預算案
proposerNo提案人姓名
cosignerNo連署人姓名
law_numberNo法律編號
bill_statusNo議案狀態,如:交付審查、三讀、排入院會
meeting_codeNo會議代碼
proposal_sourceNo提案來源,如:委員提案、政府提案
bill_numberNo議案編號
proposal_numberNo提案編號
reference_numberNo字號
article_numberNo法條編號
proposal_dateNo提案日期,格式:YYYY-MM-DD
pageNo頁數,預設1
limitNo每頁筆數,預設20,建議不超過100
output_fieldsNo自訂回傳欄位(如需指定欄位,請填寫欄位名稱列表)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON-formatted data, includes pagination behavior (page/limit defaults and recommendations), and mentions error handling (returns Chinese error messages). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, which are important for a read operation with many parameters.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. It is appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating schema info). Most sentences earn their place, though it could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the core purpose earlier.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and error handling. The output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values in detail. However, it could improve by adding behavioral context like rate limits or usage examples.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters with descriptions and examples. The description lists parameters in an 'Args' section but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it repeats examples like '例:11' for term). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '取得委員為提案人的法案列表' (Get bills where the legislator is the proposer). It specifies the exact resource (bills) and filtering condition (legislator as proposer), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_legislator_cosign_bills' (for cosigned bills) and 'list_bills' (general listing).

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 implies usage by mentioning the required parameters (term and name) and listing many optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_legislator_cosign_bills' or 'list_bills'. The context is clear for filtering by legislator as proposer, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/narumiruna/ly-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server