Skip to main content
Glama
ChrisBrooksbank

UK Parliament MCP Server

by ChrisBrooksbank
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_mp_vote

Check how a UK MP or Lord voted on a topic by finding their division voting record. Returns member details and each matching division with their Aye/No or Content/Not Content vote.

Instructions

Check how an MP or Lord voted on a topic - combines member lookup and their division votes | MP voting stance, how did MP vote, voting record on topic, division lookup, aye or no | Use when you need to know how a specific member voted on a particular issue | Returns member details and each matching division with their vote (Aye/No, or Content/Not Content in the Lords). Combines: get_member_by_id, get_commons_voting_record_for_member or get_lords_voting_record_for_member (by the member's House). See also: compare_member_votes, search_commons_divisions.

    Args:
        member_id: Parliament member ID. Get from member search first. Example: 4514
        topic: Topic or keyword to search for in division titles (e.g., 'climate', 'NHS', 'brexit').
        take: Number of matching divisions to return (default 25, max 100).

    Returns:
        Member info and divisions matching the topic with the member's vote.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
takeNo
topicYes
member_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool composes get_member_by_id with the House-appropriate voting-record call, and that Lords votes return Content/Not Content rather than Aye/No. It omits error/edge behavior (e.g., unknown member_id, no matching divisions) and any rate-limit or auth notes, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose, then trigger, then composition, then args, then returns. It is efficient, but the keyword-stuffed synonym line ('MP voting stance, how did MP vote, voting record on topic, division lookup, aye or no') is redundant padding that does not aid selection.

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?

For a composite tool over three parameters with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it resolves the member's House, and what the caller must supply first. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: member_id is explained as a Parliament member ID obtainable from member search with a concrete example (4514), topic is defined as a keyword matched against division titles with examples, and take is given a default and a max (25/100) that the bare schema lacks. Every parameter gains 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check how an MP or Lord voted on a topic') and immediately clarifies scope: it combines member lookup with division votes, covering both Houses. The 'See also' clause names compare_member_votes and search_commons_divisions, letting an agent distinguish it from the closest siblings without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear trigger condition ('Use when you need to know how a specific member voted on a particular issue') and points to alternatives via 'See also'. It does not state when NOT to use it or when compare_member_votes/search_commons_divisions would be the better pick, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools