UK Parliament MCP Server

get_erskine_may_section_relative

Navigate Erskine May sections relative to a current section ID using a step offset to retrieve the next, previous, or nearby section.

Instructions

Navigate to a section relative to current position | procedure navigation, next section, previous section | Use to move through sections sequentially | Returns section at offset from current section.

    Args:
        section_id: Current section ID.
        step: Step offset (e.g. 1 for next, -1 for previous).

    Returns:
        Section at the relative position.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`step`	Yes
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is the section at the given offset, but says nothing about what happens when the offset runs past the start/end of the document, nor about any auth or rate constraints on this read.

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 pipe-delimited header is front-loaded, but it restates the same idea twice ('relative to current position' vs 'at offset from current section'), and the Args/Returns block partially duplicates what the schema and output schema already convey.

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 two-parameter navigation tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered. The redundant 'Returns' line is harmless, but the description leaves the out-of-range behavior unspecified, which is the main thing an agent would want to know.

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: section_id is defined as the current section ID and step as an offset with concrete examples (1 = next, -1 = previous). This adds real meaning the bare integer 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+resource: navigate to a section relative to the current position in Erskine May. The 'relative' framing distinguishes it from get_erskine_may_section (absolute fetch) and get_erskine_may_paragraph, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 move through sections sequentially' implies the sequential-navigation use case, but it never contrasts with the absolute siblings (get_erskine_may_section, search_erskine_may_sections) or states when relative navigation is preferable.

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

Deploy Server