UK Parliament MCP Server

get_committee_business

Search UK Parliament committee inquiries and investigations by topic, status, or date, and filter for inquiries currently accepting evidence.

Instructions

Search for committee business (inquiries, investigations) | committee inquiries, investigations, call for evidence | Use to find committee inquiries by topic, status, or whether accepting evidence. Returns committee business items matching the criteria. See also: get_committee_business_by_id, get_bill_committees.

    Args:
        search_term: Optional: search term for business titles or content.
        committee_id: Optional: committee ID to filter by.
        date_from: Optional: start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        date_to: Optional: end date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        business_type_id: Optional: business type ID (from get_committee_business_types).
        status: Optional: status filter (e.g. 'Open', 'Closed').
        currently_accepting_evidence: Optional: filter to inquiries accepting evidence.
        show_on_website_only: Show only items visible on website.
        skip: Number of records to skip (for pagination).
        take: Number of records to return (default 30, max 100).

    Returns:
        Committee business items matching the criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`status`	No
`date_to`	No
`date_from`	No
`search_term`	No
`committee_id`	No
`business_type_id`	No
`show_on_website_only`	No
`currently_accepting_evidence`	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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pagination controls and limits (skip, take, default 30, max 100), but never states that this is a read-only operation, nor any auth needs or result-count constraints. It partially compensates but leaves the safety profile implicit in the word 'Search'.

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-loads a pipe-delimited keyword line, then usage, siblings, args, and returns. Mostly every element earns its place, but the return statement is duplicated verbatim ('Returns committee business items matching the criteria' appears in both the body and the Returns block), and the keyword pipe line reads as search-engine padding.

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 10-parameter, annotation-free search tool, the description covers purpose, usage, sibling routing, and every parameter, and an output schema exists so return-shape detail is not required. The main residual gap is the absence of any read-only/permission framing, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must document all ten parameters — and it does, in a structured Args block. It adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'YYYY-MM-DD format' for dates, take default/max, status examples ('Open', 'Closed'), and the provenance of business_type_id ('from get_committee_business_types'). A few entries (e.g. show_on_website_only) stay thin, keeping it from a 5.

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 and resource — 'Search for committee business (inquiries, investigations)' — with a clarifying parenthetical. It explicitly names siblings ('See also: get_committee_business_by_id, get_bill_committees'), which helps an agent separate list/search from single-item lookup, though it doesn't spell out the exact boundary condition with each.

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?

Gives a concrete use case — 'Use to find committee inquiries by topic, status, or whether accepting evidence' — which maps directly onto search_term, status, and currently_accepting_evidence. No explicit when-not guidance or negative routing is provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server