Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Contributions In A Debate

parliament_get_debate_contributions
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want verbatim contributions, optionally filtered to one member.

Canonical path for "everything a member said in this debate" regardless of vocabulary — text-search tools (parliament_member_debates, parliament_search_hansard) filter by contribution TEXT, dropping members who spoke without using your phrase verbatim. This tool filters by MemberId on the debate's Items list, so vocabulary doesn't matter.

Typical chain: parliament_find_member(name) → member_id, then parliament_search_hansard or parliament_lookup_by_column → debate_ext_id, then this tool. The parliament module's instructions describe the full composition pattern.

Without member_id, returns every contribution (~100-200 for a long debate).

If the wire returns no contributions for a member you expect to have spoken, report the empty result honestly — do NOT reconstruct quotes from training data. Authoritative source for member contributions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
member_idNoOptional integer Members API ID. When given, only that member's contributions in this debate are returned — regardless of which words they used. Resolves via parliament_find_member. When omitted, every contribution in the debate is returned (typical debate: 100-200 items).
debate_ext_idYesDebate GUID (DebateSectionExtId). Chain from parliament_search_hansard top_debates[].debate_ext_id, parliament_lookup_by_column matches[].debate_ext_id, or any tool that surfaces a debate identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size requested
topicNoTopic phrase filter applied, if any
totalYesNumber of contributions returned in this call
offsetNoSkip applied to this page
has_moreNoTrue if a full page was returned (more may exist)
member_idYesParliament Members API member ID
contributionsNoHansard contributions for the member. Each `text` field is capped at 3000 characters.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: without member_id it returns ~100-200 contributions, and it explicitly warns to report empty results honestly rather than reconstructing quotes from training data. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations correctly.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: usage trigger, differentiation, canonical chain, default behavior, and integrity warning. It is front-loaded with the key instruction and structured logically, so the length is justified.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, how to chain, default output size, member filtering behavior, and a critical honesty constraint. Nothing essential is missing; it fully equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description further adds meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that member_id filtering works 'regardless of which words they used' and how debate_ext_id is obtained via chaining from search tools. The parameter semantics are fully enriched.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'get debate contributions' with optional member filter. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parliament_member_debates and parliament_search_hansard by emphasizing 'verbatim contributions' and filtering by MemberId rather than text. This makes the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Directly states 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want verbatim contributions,' and explains when not to use text-search alternatives: 'text-search tools filter by contribution TEXT, dropping members who spoke without using your phrase verbatim.' It also provides a typical chain with other tools, offering clear context and exclusion criteria.

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