Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Search Committee Evidence

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum evidence items to return. Default 20. When evidence_type='both' the limit is split across oral and written (roughly half each).
offsetNoNumber of evidence items to skip before this page. Default 0. Re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true.
committee_idYesCommittee ID from committees_search_committees results.
evidence_typeNoType of evidence to search.both
max_title_charsNoPer-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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitYesMax evidence items requested for this page
offsetYesNumber of evidence items skipped before this page
evidenceNoEvidence items in this page. Titles are capped per max_title_chars; witness lists are capped at 10 per item.
has_moreYesTrue 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.
returnedYesNumber of evidence items actually returned in this call
committee_idYesCommittee ID this page belongs to
evidence_typeYesEvidence type filter applied to this query

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing pagination behavior (returns one page, default 20), caps on title length per max_title_chars, witness list cap at 10 per item, and the offset/has_more pagination pattern. These are valuable operational details not present in the structured 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 concise and well-structured, with the directive 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' front-loaded. Each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information: when to use, page size, caps, pagination loop, and authority. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, pagination, caps), the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: pagination loop, cap behavior, and authoritative status. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return structure, and annotations already cover safety traits. Overall, the description is complete for effective tool invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds meaningful supplemental context by directly referencing max_title_chars for title capping and offset for pagination, explaining the split between oral and written evidence in the 'both' case, and reinforcing the limit/offset behavior. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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: retrieving oral and written evidence submitted to a committee given a committee_id. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('committee evidence'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like committees_get_committee and committees_search_committees by focusing on evidence retrieval rather than committee metadata.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' condition, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It also includes pagination guidance (re-call with offset while has_more) and notes the 'authoritative source' aspect. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a top score.

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