UK Parliament MCP Server

browse_erskine_may_index

Browse the Erskine May index alphabetically to discover parliamentary procedure topics. Returns index terms starting with a given letter for easy navigation.

Instructions

Browse the Erskine May index alphabetically | index terms, procedure topics | Use to discover topics by browsing alphabetically | Returns index terms starting with given letter.

    Args:
        start_letter: Starting letter to browse from (A-Z), or None for all.
        skip: Number of results to skip for pagination (default 0).
        take: Number of results to return (default 30).

    Returns:
        Index terms starting with the given letter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`start_letter`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose pagination mechanics (skip/take) and the shape of the return, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or that the operation is a safe read.

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 pipe-delimited summary followed by Args/Returns. Efficient, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists and repeats the purpose statement.

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?

For a simple paginated browse tool with an output schema, the description covers parameters and behavior adequately. It need not explain return values since an output schema exists, and nothing essential to invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: start_letter is documented as A-Z or None for all, skip as pagination offset with default 0, take as result count with default 30. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (browse) and resource (Erskine May index), plus the alphabetical scope, which distinguishes it from search-style siblings. It does not explicitly name search_erskine_may_index as the contrasting tool, but the 'browsing alphabetically' framing makes the purpose legible.

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?

'Use to discover topics by browsing alphabetically' gives implied context for when this tool is appropriate versus a search. However, it never names the obvious alternative (search_erskine_may_index) or states an exclusion, so the guidance stays at the implied level.

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

Deploy Server