UK Parliament MCP Server

get_hansard_timeline_stats

Retrieve Hansard timeline statistics to analyze contribution activity over time, filtered by house, date, member, search term, or contribution type.

Instructions

Get Hansard timeline statistics | Hansard, statistics, timeline, contribution counts | Use to get aggregate stats showing contribution activity over time | Returns timeline statistics for the given search parameters

    Args:
        contribution_type: Type of contribution to filter by (optional).
        is_debates_search: Whether to search debates only (optional).
        house: Optional: house - 1 or 'Commons', 2 or 'Lords'.
        start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional).
        end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional).
        search_term: Search term (optional).
        member_id: Member ID to filter by (optional).

    Returns:
        Timeline statistics for contributions matching the criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`house`	No
`end_date`	No
`member_id`	No
`start_date`	No
`search_term`	No
`contribution_type`	No
`is_debates_search`	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

B3.4/5.0

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. The 'Get' verb and the filter list imply a read-only, non-mutating aggregate query, which is the right signal, but it says nothing about pagination, result granularity, or any permission/auth requirements. Low risk given the read-only nature, 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The keyword pipe list ('Hansard, statistics, timeline, contribution counts') is search-engine filler, and 'Returns timeline statistics for the given search parameters' duplicates the Returns section. The Args block itself is well-structured, but the framing sentences are redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. With 7 all-optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning adequately, but leaves open the aggregation granularity (per day? per month?) and the relationship to sibling Hansard search tools, which matters for correct selection.

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%, and the description compensates by documenting all seven parameters, including non-obvious semantics the schema lacks: house accepts 1/'Commons' or 2/'Lords', dates are YYYY-MM-DD, and is_debates_search restricts to debates only. It doesn't clarify the accepted values for contribution_type or whether parameters combine as AND, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource ('Get Hansard timeline statistics') and clarifies the output is 'aggregate stats showing contribution activity over time'. This is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like get_member_contribution_summary or get_hansard_calendar, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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 get aggregate stats showing contribution activity over time' gives implied usage context, but there are no when-not conditions, no named alternatives, and no guidance on how this differs from the other Hansard aggregate/summary tools in the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server