UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Search Committee Evidence

law_committees_search_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a committee_id and want the oral and written evidence submitted to it.

Returns ONE PAGE of evidence (default 20). Free-text titles are capped per max_title_chars; witness lists are capped at 10 per item. For committees with many submissions, re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true.

Authoritative source for parliamentary committee evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum evidence items to return. Default 20. When evidence_type='both' the limit is split across oral and written (roughly half each).
`offset`	No	Number of evidence items to skip before this page. Default 0. Re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true.
`committee_id`	Yes	Committee ID from committees_search_committees results.
`evidence_type`	No	Type of evidence to search.	both
`max_title_chars`	No	Per-item cap on the free-text title field. Default 300 prevents context blow-up from verbose inquiry titles. Raise to 1000+ only when you need the full title text.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	Yes	Max evidence items requested for this page
`offset`	Yes	Number of evidence items skipped before this page
`evidence`	No	Evidence items in this page. Titles are capped per max_title_chars; witness lists are capped at 10 per item.
`has_more`	Yes	True if there may be more evidence beyond this page. Re-call with offset=offset+returned to fetch the next page. Conservative: when evidence_type='both', True if either oral or written upstream page came back full.
`returned`	Yes	Number of evidence items actually returned in this call
`committee_id`	Yes	Committee ID this page belongs to
`evidence_type`	Yes	Evidence type filter applied to this query

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: pagination behavior ('Returns ONE PAGE of evidence'), caps on title lengths and witness lists, and the authoritative-source note. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the use condition, and every sentence carries meaningful information (when to use, pagination, caps, authority). No filler or redundancy.

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 paginated list tool with a 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational details: pagination, per-item caps, and the authoritative nature of the source. It does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., limit split across oral/written, offset behavior, max_title_chars intent). The description itself adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, 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 opens with an explicit, conditional imperative: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a committee_id and want the oral and written evidence submitted to it.' This clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (committee evidence), and scope (oral/written), and distinguishes it from siblings like law_committees_search_committees and law_committees_get_committee.

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?

It explicitly states the condition for use (having a committee_id) and provides concrete pagination guidance ('re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the intended use case is unambiguous and actionable.

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

All UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall 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

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are well-grouped by domain prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_) with clear descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is minor overlap, e.g., dd_search could be used instead of individual searches, and dd_fetch versus dedicated profile tools might cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain-specific prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_). Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., dd_charity_search, gov_govuk_search, law_bills_search_bills.

Tool Count4/5

70 tools is high but justified by the broad scope covering due diligence, government, legal, and property domains. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (about 15-20 each). The count is on the upper end but still manageable.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive across all domains: full CRUD for companies and charities, detailed legal research (cases, legislation, parliament, citations), property data (EPC, planning, price paid, rentals), and government information. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?