Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fec-mcp-server

fec-mcp-server

by sh-patterson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_committee_flags

Check a campaign committee for compliance red flags including RFAIs and amended filings.

Instructions

Check a campaign committee for compliance red flags including RFAIs (Requests for Additional Information from the FEC) and amended filings. Essential for identifying campaign finance compliance issues that merit closer research review.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "committee_id": "<committee_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_committee_flags"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
committee_idYesFEC committee ID to check for compliance flags
cycleNoTwo-year election cycle to check (e.g., 2024)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates a read-only check for specific flag types, but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose, no superfluous content.

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?

Simple tool with two parameters and no output schema; description covers purpose, output type, and rationale. Lacks mention of return format or pagination, but sufficient for a straightforward check.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no semantic value beyond what schema provides, meeting baseline.

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?

Description explicitly states it checks a campaign committee for compliance red flags (RFAIs, amended filings). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on financial data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States it is essential for identifying compliance issues meriting closer review, implying use when investigating compliance. While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios, the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools