FEC Campaign Finance

get_fec_spending

Get campaign spending data. Type=independent for Super PAC / outside group spending for/against candidates. Type=expenditures for direct campaign spending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	independent (Super PAC spending) or expenditures (campaign disbursements)	independent
`limit`	No	Number of results
`candidate_id`	No	Filter by candidate ID
`committee_id`	No	Committee ID (required for type=expenditures)
`election_year`	No	Election cycle (default: 2026)	2026

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJun 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'Get campaign spending data' but does not specify if the tool is read-only, has authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of such details limits transparency.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then explain the key parameter. No extraneous words or redundancies.

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?

With 5 parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the main usage guidance for the 'type' parameter. It is sufficient for a straightforward data retrieval tool, though it could mention pagination or default ordering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the two 'type' options in more contextual language ('Super PAC / outside group spending' vs 'direct campaign spending'), which aids understanding beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Get campaign spending data' and distinguishes two spending types (independent vs expenditures). This differentiates the tool from sibling tools 'get_fec_candidates' and 'get_fec_donors'.

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?

Description explains when to use 'type=independent' versus 'type=expenditures', providing clear guidance on parameter choice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other FEC data.

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

All FEC Campaign Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of campaign finance: candidates, donors, and spending. There is no overlap, and an agent can easily distinguish between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern 'get_fec_<noun>', using camelCase with underscores. The naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the server is well-scoped to the three main pillars of campaign finance data. No tools seem extraneous or missing for basic queries.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle of campaign finance: candidate summaries, donor contributions, and spending (both independent and direct). While committee details are absent, the set is complete for its intended purpose.

Resources

Need Help?