GOV.UK

Get GOV.UK Organisation

govuk_get_organisation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the profile of a UK government organisation by its slug.

Returns name, acronym, type, status, web URL, and parent/child organisations. Use govuk_list_organisations to browse all organisations and discover slugs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Organisation slug, e.g. 'hm-revenue-customs'. Find slugs via govuk_list_organisations.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	Organisation slug, e.g. 'hm-revenue-customs'. Usable with govuk_search filters.
`type`	No	Organisation type, e.g. 'ministerial_department', 'executive_agency', 'non_ministerial_department', 'public_corporation'.
`state`	No	GOV.UK status, e.g. 'live', 'closed', 'transitioning'.
`title`	No	Full organisation title.
`acronym`	No	Organisation acronym, if set.
`web_url`	No	Absolute https://www.gov.uk URL for the organisation page.
`contact_details`	No	Contact details block from GOV.UK (phone, email, address) when available.
`child_organisations`	No	Titles of child organisations / agencies under this body.
`parent_organisations`	No	Titles of parent organisations this body reports into.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields (name, acronym, type, status, web URL, parent/child organisations), which is useful context, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is a modest addition beyond the annotations, consistent with a simple read-only tool.

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 is exceptionally concise: two sentences, with the first stating purpose and the second summarizing return data and pointing to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what information is returned, and how to find the required parameter value. No critical information is missing for this low-complexity tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'slug', including a description with an example and guidance on finding slugs via govuk_list_organisations. The description's phrase 'by its slug' adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('profile of a UK government organisation'), and identifies the input method ('by its slug'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like govuk_list_organisations by focusing on fetching a single organisation's profile rather than browsing all organisations.

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?

The description gives clear context by indicating this tool is used when you have a slug and need details, and explicitly points to govuk_list_organisations as the alternative for discovering slugs. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance provided is sufficient for the tool's simple use case.

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

All GOV.UK 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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: page metadata, sections, content search, organisation profiles, organisation listing, postcode lookup, and full-text search. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent can clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the 'govuk_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., govuk_get_content, govuk_list_organisations) using imperative verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable, with only minor variation in verb choice (get, grep, lookup) but no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is ideal for the scope of reading GOV.UK data: page content (3 tools), organisations (2), postcode lookup (1), and search (1). Each tool serves a necessary function without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the primary read operations for the domain: retrieving page structure and content, searching across content, browsing and fetching organisations, and looking up postcodes. While there is no single tool to fetch all sections at once, the combination of get_content and get_section covers it adequately. No obvious gaps for a read-only API.

Resources

Need Help?