search_parliamentKeyword search across Hansard debates, bills, parliamentary questions, divisions, EDMs, committees, APPGs and GOV.UK consultations. Returns titles, dates, excerpts and source links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (titles, dates, excerpts, source links) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any limits like pagination or result ordering. This is useful but incomplete for a tool without annotation safety hints.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and wastes no words. It is easily parsed and immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output.
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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the content types searched and the fields returned. However, it omits potential context such as read-only assurance, result limits, or how to narrow results, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.
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 schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds the concept of 'keyword search,' which clarifies the parameter's role, but it does not discuss query syntax, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's type and length limits.
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 a specific verb ('keyword search') and resource ('Hansard debates, bills, parliamentary questions, divisions, EDMs, committees, APPGs and GOV.UK consultations'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target narrower domains like divisions or committee evidence.
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 a general-purpose search across the parliamentary record, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the more specific sibling tools. There is no direct comparison or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: specific lookups for bills, divisions, members, and ministerial meetings; searches for different datasets like contracts, donations, lobbying, and interests. The only potential pair (search_divisions vs get_division_results) is clearly separated by search vs result retrieval.
The bulk of tools follow a verb_noun pattern with 'search_' for dataset searches and 'get_' for specific lookups. Minor deviations include 'lookup_member' using a different verb and 'get_ministerial_meetings' which is actually a filtered search, but overall the pattern is predictable.
14 tools is well-scoped for a UK Parliament politics domain, covering a broad set of transparency and legislative data without feeling bloated. Each tool addresses a distinct data source, making the count appropriate.
The tool set covers core parliamentary operations (bill status, divisions, members) and transparency data (lobbying, gifts, contracts, donations). A general search tool (search_parliament) mitigates missing dedicated tools for debates or questions, but there are minor gaps like member voting records or a comprehensive bill list.