Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Bill Detail

bills_get_bill
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a bill_id (from bills_search_bills) and want the full detail.

Returns sponsors, current stage, long title, summary, and Royal Assent date if enacted. Summary text is capped per max_summary_chars — check summary_truncated in the response.

AFTER calling, use parliament_search_hansard(query=bill_short_title) to find the bill's parliamentary debates, or bills_search_bills with a related keyword for adjacent bills.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idYesBill ID from bills_search_bills results.
max_summary_charsNoMaximum characters of the bill summary text to return. Default 5,000 (~1,250 tokens) covers most bills. Raise for substantive government bills (Finance Act, Levelling-up) whose summary runs longer. Check summary_truncated in the response to see if it was cut.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesBill ID
urlYesParliament URL for this bill
is_actNoWhether the bill has received Royal Assent
stagesNoLegislative stages the bill has passed through
summaryNoBill summary text, possibly truncated per max_summary_chars. Check summary_truncated and summary_original_length for full-text info.
sponsorsNoBill sponsors
long_titleNoFull long title
short_titleYesShort title of the bill
current_houseNoHouse where the bill currently sits
current_stageNoCurrent legislative stage
originating_houseNoHouse where the bill was introduced
royal_assent_dateNoDate Royal Assent was given
summary_truncatedNoTrue if summary was cut to fit max_summary_chars
summary_original_lengthNoOriginal summary length in characters before any truncation

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral detail about summary truncation and the summary_truncated response flag, which helps the agent anticipate output limits.

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, roughly four sentences, with a clear 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' lead and no redundant filler. Each segment (condition, returns, follow-up) earns its place.

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?

With a comprehensive output schema, read-only annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what it returns, truncation behavior, and suggested subsequent actions. It's complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents both parameters comprehensively (source of bill_id, default and bounds for max_summary_chars), so the description's mention of truncation adds a minor cross-reference to the response flag but doesn't materially expand on the schema.

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 retrieves full bill detail including sponsors, current stage, long title, summary, and Royal Assent date, and specifies the trigger condition (having a bill_id from bills_search_bills). This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool by framing it as the detail-fetching follow-up.

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 an explicit conditional: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a bill_id (from bills_search_bills) and want the full detail.' It also provides a clear follow-up action (parliament_search_hansard) and alternative search suggestion, though it doesn't explicitly name competing tools to exclude.

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

All UK Legal Research toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Tools covering similar domains (e.g., multiple parliament search tools) are carefully differentiated by their search approach and input requirements.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., bills_get_bill, case_law_search, citations_resolve). Even generic tools adhere to this style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 35 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate for the wide-ranging domain of UK legal research. Each tool contributes to specific sub-domains (bills, case law, citations, committees, HMRC, legislation, parliament, votes) without unnecessary duplication.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers nearly all essential aspects of UK legal research: searching and retrieving bills, case law, and legislation; parsing and resolving citations; exploring committee evidence; accessing Hansard debates and member interests; and checking HMRC guidance and VAT rates. Gaps like full judgment text retrieval are mitigated by paragraph-level access and indexing.

Resources