Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Tribunals

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search Tribunal Decisions

search_tribunal_decisions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search UK first-tier and Upper Tribunal decisions published on GOV.UK — Employment Tribunal (first-tier, NOT the appeal tribunal), Employment Appeal Tribunal, Residential Property Tribunal, Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber — social security/disability/child support), and Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery). This is the ONLY reachable source for first-tier Employment Tribunal decisions (134,000+) — Find Case Law / uk-caselaw carries the Employment APPEAL Tribunal only, so a search there for "employment tribunal decisions" silently returns appeals, not first-instance decisions. Returns title, GOV.UK link, and publication date for each match; pass a link to get_tribunal_decision for the full text. Covers England, Wales and Scotland tribunals as published on GOV.UK only — Northern Ireland tribunals are not on this platform. Decisions before roughly 2017 are sparse. This is NOT Crown Court, County Court, Magistrates’ Court or any other first-instance court — those are not tribunals and are not published here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDecisions to return, 1-50 (default 20).
queryNoFree-text search over the decision (party names, subject matter), e.g. "disability discrimination" or "unfair dismissal Tesco".
to_dateNoLatest publication date, YYYY-MM-DD.
categoryNoRestrict to one tribunal decision category slug, e.g. "disability-discrimination" or "unfair-dismissal". Call list_tribunal_categories for the exact slugs — they are not guessable from a category name and an unrecognised slug returns zero rows rather than an error.
tribunalYesWhich tribunal to search. One of: employment, employment_appeal, residential_property, administrative_appeals, tax. "employment" is the first-tier Employment Tribunal (the one Find Case Law does not carry); "employment_appeal" is the EAT.
from_dateNoEarliest publication date, YYYY-MM-DD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the return shape (title, GOV.UK link, publication date), scope limits (England/Wales/Scotland only, pre-2017 sparse), and the silent-failure risk with category slugs. It does not discuss pagination or result caps beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveats, and every sentence carries substantive information. It is on the long side and the exclusion list is somewhat repetitive, but nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return fields and the handoff to get_tribunal_decision, plus the coverage gaps an agent must know. Complete for a search tool of this scope.

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%, so the parameters (including the enum and free-text query examples) are already well documented. The description restates the link-passthrough to get_tribunal_decision but adds little parameter syntax the schema does not already provide. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (UK first-tier and Upper Tribunal decisions on GOV.UK), then enumerates exactly which tribunals are covered. It explicitly differentiates itself from Find Case Law/uk-caselaw and from courts, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: names get_tribunal_decision for full text when a link is available, warns that Find Case Law only carries the EAT, and states exclusions (Northern Ireland, Crown/County/Magistrates' courts). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both present.

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

All Uk Tribunals toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources