@openar/mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_iniciativas

List and filter legislative initiatives from the Portuguese Parliament by legislature, type, status, party, deputy, or search in title. Supports pagination.

Instructions

List legislative initiatives with optional filters

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": "list_iniciativas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`legislatura`	No	e.g. XVII, XVI
`tipo`	No	R=Resolução P=Proposta J=Projeto D=Decreto S=Outros A=Apreciação I=Europeia C=Pergunta
`estado`	No	e.g. Aprovado, Rejeitado, Caducado
`grupo`	No	Party abbreviation e.g. PS, PSD, CH
`resultado`	No
`q`	No	Search in title
`deputado`	No	Deputy ID or name (partial match)
`page`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5May 25, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'list' implying read-only but lacks details on pagination, ordering, response format, or any side effects. The behavior is under-disclosed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks important structural elements. It conveys the basic purpose but does not front-load critical details like pagination or filter logic. Every word earns its place, but it omits necessary context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain pagination, how filters combine, or what the response contains. The tool's complexity demands a richer description.

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 high (67% with descriptions), and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the schema's limited doc on parameters like page and limit.

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 lists legislative initiatives with optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_iniciativa' (single item) and other list tools for different entities.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using 'get_iniciativa' for a single initiative or other list tools for different resources. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server