UK Parliament MCP Server

get_committee_bills

Retrieve the bills a parliamentary committee has examined, newest first, with each bill's current stage, so you can research a committee's legislative scrutiny.

Instructions

Find the bills a committee has examined | committee legislative scrutiny, bills scrutinised by committee, committee's bill work | Use when asked which bills a committee has looked at | Returns the committee and its legislative-scrutiny business, newest first, each with the bill it examined (current stage) and how the bill was matched (committee link or title). Combines: get_committee_by_id, get_committee_business, get_committee_business_by_id, get_bill_by_id. See also: get_bill_committees (the reverse), get_committee_summary.

    Args:
        committee_id: Committee ID. Get from search_committees or get_committee_summary. Example: 172 (Lords Constitution Committee)
        take: Number of most recent legislative scrutiny items to return (default 10, max 20).

    Returns:
        Committee summary and the bills it examined.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`take`	No
`committee_id`	Yes

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

A4.7/5.0

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 ordering ('newest first'), the matched-by mechanism ('committee link or title'), that the bill's current stage is included, and that the result is a composite ('Combines: get_committee_by_id, get_committee_business, get_committee_business_by_id, get_bill_by_id'). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior for an unknown committee_id.

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?

The pipe-delimited preamble is front-loaded and dense, then Args/Returns are cleanly separated; nearly every clause adds routing or parameter value. Minor waste in the 'Returns:' line, which largely restates what the output schema already conveys.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents both parameters with sources and constraints, explains the return shape's ordering and matching semantics, and names the composed sub-tools. With an output schema present, no further explanation of return values is required, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: committee_id is explained with a source ('Get from search_committees or get_committee_summary') and a concrete example ('172 (Lords Constitution Committee)'), and take is explained with both a default and a cap ('default 10, max 20') — the max is not present in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the bills a committee has examined') and immediately scopes what is returned (legislative-scrutiny business, not all committee business). It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_bill_committees as 'the reverse' and pointing to get_committee_summary, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when asked which bills a committee has looked at') plus two named alternatives with their relationship ('get_bill_committees (the reverse)', 'get_committee_summary'). The when-to-use condition and the alternative-selection logic are both present.

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

Deploy Server