UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Search UK Parliament Petitions

law_parliament_search_petitions

Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK Parliament petitions by keyword or topic.

Returns petition title, state, signature count, and dates for government response or parliamentary debate if applicable. Filter by state (open, closed, debated, etc.) to narrow to live or historical petitions.

This is the authoritative source for UK Parliament petitions (petition.parliament.uk).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum petitions to return. Default 20.
`query`	Yes	Search term for petition titles, e.g. 'ban trophy hunting' or 'NHS funding'.
`state`	No	Filter by petition state.	all
`offset`	No	Number of petitions to skip before this page. Default 0. Re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size requested
`query`	Yes	The term that was searched in petitions
`state`	Yes	Petition state filter applied to this query
`total`	Yes	Number of petitions returned in this call
`offset`	No	Skip applied to this page
`has_more`	No	True if a full page was returned (more may exist)
`petitions`	No	Matching petitions (title, state, signature count, key dates, URL).

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description falsely claims users can filter by 'open, closed, debated, etc.' while the input schema only allows 'open', 'closed', and 'all'. This is a misleading behavioral disclosure that could cause invalid calls.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence serving a purpose: usage trigger, return fields, filtering guidance, and authoritative source. Despite the state inaccuracy, the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema and comprehensive annotations, so the description does not need to explain returns or safety. However, the misleading 'debated' filter option creates a gap in completeness, as the agent cannot reliably know the valid state values without cross-referencing the schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively misleads on the 'state' parameter by suggesting 'debated' is a valid filter value, which contradicts the enum definition. It adds no other meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'searching UK Parliament petitions by keyword or topic.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like law_parliament_search_hansard and law_bills_search_bills by focusing exclusively on petitions and naming the authoritative source.

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 opens with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK Parliament petitions,' providing explicit use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is narrow and clear, making it obvious when this tool is appropriate.

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?