UK Parliament MCP Server

get_debate_by_id

Fetches the complete transcript of a UK Parliament debate, with all member speeches, from Hansard using a debate section ID from search results.

Instructions

Get full debate transcript | Hansard, speeches, contributions | Use after search_hansard to get complete debate with all member speeches. Returns debate title, date, house, and all contributions. See also: get_debate_speakers, get_debate_divisions, get_member_hansard_contributions.

    Args:
        debate_section_id: External ID from search_hansard results.

    Returns:
        Full debate with all member contributions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`debate_section_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ('debate title, date, house, and all contributions'), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior on an invalid/nonexistent debate_section_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?

Front-loaded summary followed by usage, a see-also list, and Args/Returns blocks. Well organized, though the Returns line restates the opening sentence's content and could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance of the ID, and related tools. The main omission is error/empty-result behavior, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: 'debate_section_id: External ID from search_hansard results' tells the agent where the value comes from, which the bare string schema does not.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get full debate transcript') plus the domain ('Hansard, speeches, contributions'), which is clearly distinguishable from list/search siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the closest lookalikes such as get_debate_by_external_id or get_debate_by_title.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context ('Use after search_hansard to get complete debate') and names four related tools to consider. However, it does not say when to prefer those siblings over this one (e.g. get_debate_by_title vs by_id), so the routing is directional but not exclusive.

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

Deploy Server