UK Parliament MCP Server

get_hansard_sitting_day

Retrieve all Hansard debate sections and agenda for a specific sitting day. Supply the date and house to review Commons or Lords business.

Instructions

Get full agenda/sections for a sitting day | Hansard, daily business, agenda | Use to see all debates and business for a specific day. Returns all debate sections for that day. See also: get_hansard_section_trees, get_hansard_calendar.

    Args:
        sitting_date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        house: House: 1 or 'Commons', 2 or 'Lords'.

    Returns:
        All debate sections for that day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`house`	Yes
`sitting_date`	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

A4.1/5.0

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. The name and 'Get' phrasing imply a read-only operation and the return content is described ('all debate sections'), but there is no mention of pagination, volume limits, or auth requirements for a day-level aggregate query.

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?

Content is front-loaded and organized into usage, Args, and Returns blocks. The pipe-delimited tag line ('Hansard, daily business, agenda') is slightly noisy filler but is brief and does not obscure the primary purpose.

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, the description does not need to detail return values, and it sensibly focuses on purpose, args, and alternatives. Both required params are documented, leaving only edge-case behavior (invalid dates, empty days) unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies 'sitting_date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format' and 'house: 1 or Commons, 2 or Lords'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not explain what happens for an invalid or non-sitting date.

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 ('Get full agenda/sections for a sitting day') and clarifies scope ('all debates and business for a specific day'). The agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_hansard_section_trees or get_debate_by_id 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use to see all debates and business for a specific day' gives clear context, and 'See also: get_hansard_section_trees, get_hansard_calendar' names alternatives. However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool or the exact condition that selects one sibling over another.

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

Deploy Server