fec-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool checks for compliance red flags but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of flags, summary report). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and importance. The first sentence covers the core functionality, and the second emphasizes its utility. There's no unnecessary information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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?

Given the complexity of compliance checking and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., types of flags, format), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to ensure the agent can use it effectively, but it falls short here.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for committee_id (FEC committee ID to check) and cycle (two-year election cycle). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the cycle parameter or examples of committee IDs. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Check a campaign committee for compliance red flags including RFAIs, amended filings, and late reports.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('campaign committee'), and mentions specific types of red flags. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_committee_finances or search_candidates, which might also involve committee data but for different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating it's 'essential for identifying potential campaign finance issues and compliance problems,' which suggests when to use it (for compliance checks). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_committee_finances or search_donors, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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