Skip to main content
Glama

Legislation Uk

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Legislation

search_legislation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search UK legislation by title words (and optional year), returning matching Acts/instruments with their full-text URLs. UK legislation only. Source: legislation.gov.uk Atom feed. Document types: ukpga (UK Public General Acts), uksi (UK Statutory Instruments), asp (Scottish Parliament Acts), anaw/asc (Wales), nia (Northern Ireland), ukla (UK Local Acts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResults page (default 1). 20 results per page.
typeYesDocument type, e.g. "ukpga". One of: ukpga (UK Public General Acts), uksi (UK Statutory Instruments), asp (Scottish Parliament Acts), anaw/asc (Wales), nia (Northern Ireland), ukla (UK Local Acts).
yearNoOptional year to restrict results, e.g. 2010.
titleYesWords to match in the title, e.g. "equality".

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the data source ('legislation.gov.uk Atom feed'), document types, and that results include full-text URLs. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a list of document types. The main action is front-loaded. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of 4 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (matching Acts/instruments with URLs) and the data source. It is complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%—all parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description reaffirms the main parameters ('title words and optional year') but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs ('Search', 'returning') and states the resource ('UK legislation'), distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_legislation' by emphasizing search by title words and optional year. It clearly communicates the tool's function as a search tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'UK legislation only' and lists document types, implying scope but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_legislation'. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Legislation Uk 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The legislation-specific tools are distinct, but the server bundles dozens of unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/AI-visibility tools, making the set's purpose unclear. Several near-identical pairs exist: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would struggle to know which tool is the right entry point.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: snake_case dominates, but camelCase appears in ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, generate_llms_txt, and pipeworx_feedback. There is also inconsistency in verb style — get_/search_/list_ coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe. The legislation tools themselves follow a clean get_legislation* pattern, but the wider set does not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server named 'Legislation Uk' where only 4 tools actually relate to UK legislation. The remaining 31 tools appear to belong to a broader data/prediction-market platform, which suggests severe scope creep or a mislabeled assembly. This bloats the surface area and makes the server harder for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the stated UK-legislation purpose, the core read-and-search workflow is covered: search_legislation, get_legislation, get_legislation_section, and get_legislation_text together support discovery, metadata, targeted section lookup, and full-text retrieval with version selection. Obvious gaps remain, such as full-text content search and amendment/change history, but agents can complete the primary task of finding and reading legislation. The unrelated tools neither help nor complete this domain.

Resources