Read a resource by its URI.
For static resources, provide the exact URI. For templated resources, provide the URI with template parameters filled in.
Returns the resource content as a string. Binary content is base64-encoded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | The URI of the resource to read |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the return type (string), base64 encoding for binary content, and how templated URIs should be handled. It does not disclose error behavior, but that is not required given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Read a resource by its URI'), followed by necessary usage nuance and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains how to invoke for both resource types and what to expect in the response. The output schema is provided separately, so no need to duplicate that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the 'uri' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining static vs templated resource usage and the need to fill in template parameters, adding semantics beyond the schema's one-line description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a resource by its URI'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific domains (e.g., bills_get_bill). It is generic but unambiguous, making its purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a URI and need its content. It distinguishes between static and templated resources, which is useful practical guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.