UK Source Intelligence

inspect_govuk_page

Read-only

SOURCE EVIDENCE: With a trial or paid key, inspect a supported canonical GOV.UK Content API page; return documented title, update timestamps and a reproducible source fingerprint, and optionally check whether a quoted passage is present. Useful for assistants citing UK guidance. No legal or factual correctness guarantee; not every GOV.UK page is supported.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_govuk_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Full canonical https://www.gov.uk/ URL for a supported Content API page.
`quote`	No	Optional exact quote to check for presence, maximum 400 characters.
`api_key`	No	Optional UKSI API key (usi_...). Prefer supplying Authorization: Bearer KEY in MCP connection settings rather than exposing paid keys in tool calls.
`previous_fingerprint`	No	Optional previously observed SHA-256 fingerprint to compare.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the auth requirement (trial or paid key), the scope limitation (not every GOV.UK page supported), and a correctness disclaimer ('No legal or factual correctness guarantee'). It also frames the fingerprint as reproducible evidence. Rate limits or pagination are not mentioned, but the safety profile is already covered by the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the 'SOURCE EVIDENCE' label, then packs scope, return values, optional check, and caveats into a dense but single coherent paragraph. No filler sentences, though the semicolon-chained structure is information-heavy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly describes what is returned (title, timestamps, fingerprint) and how the optional quote check behaves. Auth, scope, and disclaimer are covered; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mentions of 'quoted passage present' and 'reproducible source fingerprint' largely restate what the url, quote, and previous_fingerprint schema descriptions already say, adding little new semantic detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (supported canonical GOV.UK Content API page) and states the returned artifacts (title, update timestamps, reproducible source fingerprint) plus the optional quote check. It does not name or contrast any sibling such as preview_source_evidence or page_history, so an agent still has to infer which tool applies.

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?

Provides a clear use context ('useful for assistants citing UK guidance'), a prerequisite ('with a trial or paid key'), and an exclusion ('not every GOV.UK page is supported'). It stops short of routing the agent to an alternative sibling when those conditions fail.

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

All UK Source Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?