UK Parliament MCP Server

get_commons_divisions_search_count

Count House of Commons divisions matching your search criteria before fetching results. Returns the total number of matching votes or divisions.

Instructions

Count House of Commons divisions matching search criteria | number of votes, how many divisions | Use to size a search before fetching results with search_commons_divisions | Returns the total count.

    Args:
        search_term: Optional: search term for division topics (e.g. 'brexit', 'climate', 'NHS').
        member_id: Optional: only divisions this member voted in.
        start_date: Optional: start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        end_date: Optional: end date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        division_number: Optional: specific division number.
        include_when_member_was_teller: Optional: include divisions where the member was a teller.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	No
`member_id`	No
`start_date`	No
`search_term`	No
`division_number`	No
`include_when_member_was_teller`	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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation is a count rather than a record fetch, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the count is exact/approximate. For a simple read-only counting tool the omission is minor, but the disclosure is thin.

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?

Purpose, keyword synonyms, and usage are front-loaded before the Args block, so the key routing information comes first. The pipe-separated synonym phrases ('number of votes, how many divisions') are somewhat redundant but serve search matching, so the padding is tolerable.

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?

With six parameters at 0% schema coverage, an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and no annotations, the description covers every parameter and the usage context. It is complete for correct invocation, with only behavioral caveats left implicit.

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: it documents all six parameters with meanings such as 'only divisions this member voted in' and the YYYY-MM-DD date format that the schema lacks. A couple of entries (division_number) merely restate the name, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 ('Count House of Commons divisions matching search criteria') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_commons_divisions by being the counting counterpart. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do without opening the 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?

'Use to size a search before fetching results with search_commons_divisions' names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one. This is explicit when-to-use routing with the alternative identified, leaving nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server