get_memberMember detail by member id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Parliament member id | |
| includes | No | Comma-sep: Posts | Biography | Contact | Synopsis |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| member | No | Main member record | |
| includes | No | Additional member data sections (Posts, Biography, Contact, Synopsis) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the generic 'detail'. It does not mention response behavior, errors, or side effects, so it provides minimal added value.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose effectively.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the tool's basic purpose is clear. However, for a lookup tool with optional parameters, a brief note on typical use cases would improve completeness, but it's mostly adequate.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (id: 'Parliament member id', includes: 'Comma-sep: ...'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 'Member detail by member id.' clearly states the tool retrieves details for a specific member using their ID. It distinguishes from search_members, which is a sibling for searching. However, it could be more specific about what 'detail' encompasses.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_members. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use. The description lacks explicit usage context.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap), and the massive mix of unrelated domains (Polymarket betting, general data lookup, AI visibility) alongside UK Parliament tools makes selection confusing. An agent would struggle to know whether to use ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, or ask_pipeworx_grounded, or which of the five polymarket tools fits.
Most tools use snake_case with readable names, but the action placement varies (verb_noun like get_bill vs noun_verb like bet_research, entity_profile), and there are compound names like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence. The style is mostly consistent but the verb_noun pattern is not uniform across the set.
38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority are unrelated to the server's stated UK Parliament purpose. Only 7 tools (get_bill, search_bills, bill_stages, get_member, search_members, search_hansard, recent_divisions) have anything to do with Parliament, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent scope.
The Parliament-specific surface is thin: basic bill/member/Hansard lookups exist, but there are no tools for specific divisions/votes, committees, publications, or detailed procedural information. The vast non-Parliament tooling is irrelevant, creating a dead end for any real Parliament research beyond the basics.