UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Find Member of Parliament

law_parliament_find_member

Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a member's name and need their integer member_id.

Returns all members matching the name query, each with the integer id, party, constituency, house, and current-sitting status. Disambiguates common-name matches (e.g. "Lord Smith" returns multiple peers).

CALL THIS BEFORE any tool that filters by member_id — including parliament_get_debate_contributions, parliament_member_debates, and parliament_member_interests. Name → ID first; ID-based filtering second. Skipping this step and text-searching by name returns unrelated results (see parliament_search_hansard's anti-bypass note for the Pannick case).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name or partial name, e.g. 'Starmer', 'Baroness Hale'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	The name that was searched
`total`	Yes	Number of members matching the query
`members`	No	Matching members. Use the integer `id` field from any member to call parliament_member_debates or parliament_member_interests.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns all matching members (not just one), includes current-sitting status, and disambiguates common-name matches. This goes beyond the annotations, though minor details like exact matching rules are not fully specified.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most important usage directive. It is divided into three concise paragraphs: when to use, what it returns, and the call-order relationship with other tools. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?

The description fully covers the tool's role within the broader toolset, including why it must be called before member_id-filtered tools and the consequence of skipping it. It also summarizes the return fields, which is sufficient given that an output schema exists. No critical information is missing for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including an example and length constraints. The description aligns with this by referencing a 'name query' but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 purpose: given a member's name, return their integer member_id and related details (party, constituency, house, sitting status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the name-to-ID lookup step before ID-based tools, and explicitly contrasts it with text-searching by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a member's name and need their integer member_id'), and states to call it before any tool that filters by member_id, naming specific sibling tools. It also advises against skipping it and text-searching by name, with a concrete example of the failure mode.

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?