UK Parliament MCP Server

get_debate_by_title

Find a UK Parliament debate by title and date when you do not know its ID, returning the debate that matches the given House, date, and section title.

Instructions

Find a debate by title and date | Hansard, find debate, debate lookup | Use when you know the debate title and date but not the ID. Returns the debate matching the title and date.

    Args:
        house: House: 'Commons' or 'Lords' (1 or 2 also accepted).
        date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        section_title: Title of the debate section.

    Returns:
        Debate matching the title and date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes
`house`	Yes
`section_title`	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

A4/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup ('Find', 'Returns the debate matching...'), but says nothing about behavior when no match exists, case sensitivity, or permissions. Adequate but with clear gaps 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, but contains waste: 'Returns the debate matching the title and date' is stated twice (opening line and Returns section), and the pipe-delimited keyword list ('Hansard, find debate, debate lookup') is search padding rather than agent guidance.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description covers all params, formats, and the routing condition. Only the no-match/error behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a simple lookup.

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 the 'house' param is an undocumented anyOf(integer|string). The description compensates well by documenting all three params, including the accepted values for house ('Commons'/'Lords' or 1/2) and the YYYY-MM-DD date format, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Find') and resource ('debate by title and date') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the ID-based lookup by saying it is for when you know the title and date but not the ID. An agent can route between this and get_debate_by_id without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you know the debate title and date but not the ID'), which implicitly contrasts with the ID-based sibling. No explicit when-not or failure conditions, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server