UK Parliament MCP Server

get_committee_staff

Retrieve staff members, clerks, and advisers supporting a UK Parliament committee, with optional filters for current or former status and website visibility.

Instructions

Get staff members of a committee | committee staff, clerks, advisers | Use to find who supports a committee's work. Returns staff members with their roles.

    Args:
        committee_id: Committee ID.
        membership_status: Optional: filter by status (e.g. 'Current', 'Former').
        show_on_website_only: Show only staff visible on website.
        skip: Number of records to skip (for pagination).
        take: Number of records to return (default 30).

    Returns:
        Staff members of the committee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`committee_id`	Yes
`membership_status`	No
`show_on_website_only`	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

A3.5/5.0

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 meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema: the default of 30 records for take, pagination via skip/take, and that show_on_website_only filters to publicly visible staff by default. It does not state read-only nature, permission requirements, or error behavior for an invalid committee_id, which is a gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose and keyword line first, then Args, then Returns. There is some redundancy between the keyword line, 'Returns staff members with their roles,' and 'Staff members of the committee,' which could be trimmed, but the structure is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and tie-in to results adequately. The notable gap is disambiguation from the large cluster of committee-member and member-staff siblings in this 190+ tool server, which the description never addresses.

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 compensate, and it does: all five parameters are explained, including an example value for membership_status ('Current', 'Former') and the default record count for take. The explanations are terse ('Committee ID.') but they cover every parameter and add semantics the schema lacks.

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 staff members of a committee') and enumerates the entities covered (staff, clerks, advisers), which is clearer than the bare name. However, it never differentiates itself from the very similar sibling get_committee_members or get_member_staff, so an agent must infer the members-vs-staff distinction.

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 find who supports a committee's work' gives an implied context of use, but there are no when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the many committee/member siblings. Adequate minimum viability, nothing more.

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

Deploy Server