Retrieve declared interests and mandates for Swiss parliament members, including board memberships, consulting roles, and organizational affiliations.
Get declared interests and mandates of a Swiss parliament member — board memberships, consulting roles, organizations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_id | Yes | OpenParlData person ID (get from get_parliament_members results) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 describes what data is retrieved but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't inform the agent about operational constraints or expected behavior beyond the 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with specific examples. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving structured data for a specific entity), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is fetched but lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies. The high schema coverage helps, but more behavioral context would improve completeness for a tool with no annotations.
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 description does not mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required 'person_id' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately explains the parameter, and the description doesn't need to add redundant information. However, it doesn't provide additional context beyond the schema.
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: 'Get declared interests and mandates of a Swiss parliament member — board memberships, consulting roles, organizations.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('declared interests and mandates'), and target ('Swiss parliament member'), with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_parliament_members' or 'search_parliament_business', which could provide related data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the need for a 'person_id' from 'get_parliament_members results' in the schema, but this is not stated in the description itself. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter hints alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.