Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Search UK Parliament Petitions

parliament_search_petitions
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK Parliament petitions by keyword or topic.

Returns petition title, state, signature count, and dates for government response or parliamentary debate if applicable. Filter by state (open, closed, debated, etc.) to narrow to live or historical petitions.

This is the authoritative source for UK Parliament petitions (petition.parliament.uk).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum petitions to return. Default 20.
queryYesSearch term for petition titles, e.g. 'ban trophy hunting' or 'NHS funding'.
stateNoFilter by petition state.all
offsetNoNumber of petitions to skip before this page. Default 0. Re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size requested
queryYesThe term that was searched in petitions
stateYesPetition state filter applied to this query
totalYesNumber of petitions returned in this call
offsetNoSkip applied to this page
has_moreNoTrue if a full page was returned (more may exist)
petitionsNoMatching petitions (title, state, signature count, key dates, URL).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about return fields (title, state, signature count, dates) and the authoritative source, but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination or rate 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 appropriately sized, with the key usage directive front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: usage, returned data, filtering, and authoritative source. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a rich output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential usage context well. It does not explain pagination, but the offset parameter schema already handles that, and the output schema likely documents the return shape. Slight gap on the debated state discrepancy.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by state but inconsistently lists 'debated' as an option while the schema enum only allows 'open', 'closed', and 'all', which could mislead. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's already descriptive parameter fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('UK Parliament petitions') with clear scope ('by keyword or topic'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parliament_search_hansard and bills_search_bills by focusing on petitions specifically.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK Parliament petitions by keyword or topic,' providing explicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, falling short of the highest bar.

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