Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Find Member of Parliament

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName or partial name, e.g. 'Starmer', 'Baroness Hale'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe name that was searched
totalYesNumber of members matching the query
membersNoMatching members. Use the integer `id` field from any member to call parliament_member_debates or parliament_member_interests.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: returns all matches with listed fields, handles common-name disambiguation (e.g., 'Lord Smith'), and does not contradict 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 front-loaded with the critical usage directive, then concisely details return behavior, disambiguation, and prerequisite relationships. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff despite the length.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description enriches the context by explaining the tool's role in the broader workflow, return content, and disambiguation behavior. It sufficiently covers all details needed for correct 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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description and examples ('Starmer', 'Baroness Hale'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the name-to-ID purpose, so the high schema coverage baseline 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 explicitly states the tool resolves a member's name to an integer member_id, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes it from sibling tools by framing it as a prerequisite lookup for member_id-based filtering, unlike direct search tools.

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?

Provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' instruction and names specific alternatives to call before (parliament_get_debate_contributions, etc.). It also gives a negative example (text-searching by name returns unrelated results) and references the Pannick case, making when/when-not boundaries very clear.

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