UK Constituencies MCP Server from MCPBundles
Server Details
Search UK parliamentary constituencies by name, get boundaries and ONS codes
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- thinkchainai/mcpbundles
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches by name across all constituencies, while the other retrieves detailed information for a specific constituency by its ONS code. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on whether it needs to search broadly or fetch specific data.
Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern: 'constituencies-search-989' and 'constituency-get-989'. They use the same prefix ('constituenc') and suffix ('-989'), with clear action verbs ('search' and 'get') that accurately describe their functions. This consistency aids in predictability and readability.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a domain focused on UK constituencies, which might include operations like listing all constituencies, filtering by region, or updating data. While the tools cover basic search and retrieval, the count is borderline low, potentially limiting agent workflows without additional context or tools.
The server has significant gaps in coverage for a constituencies domain. It lacks essential operations such as listing all constituencies, filtering by geographic or political attributes, or handling related data like MPs or election results. This incompleteness could lead to agent failures when trying to perform common tasks beyond simple search and get.
Available Tools
2 toolsconstituencies-search-989ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search UK parliamentary constituencies by name. Returns constituency codes, names, centroid coordinates (lat/lon), boundary area, and perimeter for all 650 Westminster constituencies. Use partial names for broader matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Constituency name or partial name to search for (e.g. 'Oxford', 'Manchester', 'Cardiff'). | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return (default 20, max 100). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope ('all 650 Westminster constituencies'), describes the return data format, and mentions partial name matching. While annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive properties, the description enhances understanding of search behavior and result characteristics.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first establishes purpose and return data, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and contains zero wasted words.
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 search tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what data is returned (compensating for lack of output schema) and search behavior. The main gap is not explicitly contrasting with the sibling tool, but otherwise it's well-rounded for this complexity level.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'partial names for broader matches' which relates to the 'name' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Search UK parliamentary constituencies by name') and resource ('constituencies'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'constituency-get-989' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval of a specific constituency. It provides concrete details about what data is returned (codes, names, coordinates, area, perimeter).
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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search UK parliamentary constituencies by name') and includes a helpful tip ('Use partial names for broader matches'), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative. The guidance is practical but lacks explicit comparison with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
constituency-get-989ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get full details of a UK parliamentary constituency by its ONS code. Returns the constituency name, centroid coordinates, boundary area in square metres, perimeter length, and Welsh name (if applicable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| constituency_code | Yes | ONS constituency code (e.g. 'E14001063' for Aldershot). Codes start with E (England), W (Wales), S (Scotland), N (Northern Ireland). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide excellent behavioral context (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable context about what specific data is returned (name, coordinates, area, perimeter, Welsh name) that goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and key parameter, the second enumerates the return values. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 simple single-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations but no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what data is returned. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the response format or any limitations, but covers the essential information well for this complexity level.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.
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 specific action ('Get full details'), resource ('UK parliamentary constituency'), and key identifier ('by its ONS code'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'constituencies-search-989' by focusing on retrieval of a single constituency rather than search functionality.
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 usage when you need full details of a specific constituency identified by ONS code, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the search sibling or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!