UK Parliament MCP Server

get_committee_business_publications_summary

Retrieve publication summaries for a UK Parliament committee inquiry by business ID, showing publication groups and counts by type.

Instructions

Get publication summary for an inquiry | inquiry publications, report groups | Use to see publication types for a committee business/inquiry | Returns publication groups with counts

    Args:
        business_id: Committee business ID.

    Returns:
        Summary of publications grouped by type for the inquiry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`business_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

B3.4/5.0

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 discloses the return shape ("publication groups with counts", "grouped by type"), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether it is a pure read. For a no-annotation tool this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the pipe-delimited keyword run ("inquiry publications, report groups") duplicates what the surrounding sentences already say. The Args/Returns block is boilerplate that partly repeats the opening line.

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?

The tool is simple (one required integer parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and the shape of the result, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the schema label as "Committee business ID," adding no format, provenance, or lookup guidance. It is not wrong, just minimal for a single required parameter.

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 ("Get publication summary for an inquiry") and scopes it to a committee business/inquiry rather than a whole committee. It does not name the near-identical sibling get_committee_publications_summary, so the agent must infer the difference from the phrase "for a committee business/inquiry."

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 see publication types for a committee business/inquiry" gives an implied when-to-use, but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives. With siblings like get_committee_publications_summary and get_committee_publication_types in the set, the description should have said when to pick this one over them.

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

Deploy Server