fec-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes automatic classification of PAC contributions and filtering capabilities, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context but leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with core purpose and efficiently structured into three sentences covering retrieval, classification, and filtering. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly tighter by combining some concepts.

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?

For a read tool with 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and some features. However, it lacks details on return format, error cases, or performance expectations, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying filtering by amount threshold and mentioning PAC classification, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies.

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 retrieves itemized contributions (Schedule A) received by a campaign committee, specifying the resource (contributions/donors) and key details like donor types and amounts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on receipts rather than finances, flags, disbursements, or searches.

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 mentions filtering by amount threshold and researching patterns, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_committee_finances or search_donors. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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