Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Divisions Held In A Debate

parliament_get_debate_divisions
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want the divisions (formal votes) held within it.

Most debates contain no divisions — Business of the House sittings, statements, urgent questions, debates without a vote. A populated list typically appears around bill stages, motions, and contested amendments. Empty list is the honest result, not a failure mode.

Each returned division carries TWO IDs:

  • id — Hansard-side reference. Useful for cross-referencing in Hansard.

  • votes_id — Lords/Commons Votes API ID (cross-resolved by date+number). AFTER calling, pass votes_id as division_id into votes_get_division for the full member-by-member voting record.

The two upstreams use distinct ID-spaces (Hansard Number=3 might be Votes-API divisionId=3392). The cross-resolve runs once per (date, house) group — typically one extra HTTP per debate. votes_id is None when the cross-resolve found no match.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
debate_ext_idYesDebate GUID (DebateSectionExtId). Chain from parliament_search_hansard contribution.debate_ext_id, top_debates[].debate_ext_id, or parliament_policy_position_summary top_debates[].debate_ext_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
divisionsNoDivisions held in this debate, in chronological order. Empty when no divisions occurred. Each element's `id` chains to votes_get_division.
debate_ext_idYesEcho of the input debate GUID.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating safe read-only behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral details: empty list is an honest result, cross-resolve happens once per (date, house) group with an extra HTTP, votes_id can be None, and the two ID spaces are distinct. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and contains well-structured bullet points for the two IDs. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds meaningful context; no waste.

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 has an output schema, the description focuses on critical nuances: the possibility of an empty list, the meaning of votes_id, the cross-resolve behavior, and the None case. This provides a complete mental model for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter debate_ext_id, which already includes a detailed description with chaining sources. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the usage line, so the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves divisions (formal votes) held within a debate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like parliament_get_debate_contributions and votes_get_division by focusing on the debate-level divisions list and explicitly referencing the votes_id linkage.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want the divisions'. Also provides when-not-to-use context (most debates have no divisions) and directs users to votes_get_division with the votes_id, giving clear alternative and follow-up guidance.

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