UK Parliament MCP Server

get_historic_sitting_day

Fetch details for a historic UK Parliament sitting day by house and date, returning Hansard session sections and records.

Instructions

Get details of a historic sitting day | historical Hansard, past session details | Use to get details of a specific historic sitting day | Returns sitting day details with sections

    Args:
        house: House: 'Commons' or 'Lords' (1 or 2 also accepted).
        sitting_date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format.

    Returns:
        Details of the historic sitting 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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet only mentions that sections are included in the return. It says nothing about auth needs, behavior for non-sitting dates, error handling, or even that this is a read-only operation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns scaffolding is serviceable, but the lead phrase and the 'Use to...' sentence are near-duplicates, and the pipe-separated keyword tags ('historical Hansard, past session details') add little for an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value detail is not required, and both parameters are documented. The main gap is the absence of any routing against get_hansard_sitting_day and search_historic_sitting_days, but for a simple two-param getter it is otherwise complete.

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 documents that house accepts 'Commons'/'Lords' or 1/2 (critical since the schema only offers anyOf integer/string with no enum) and that sitting_date is YYYY-MM-DD. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 details of a historic sitting day') and the 'historic' qualifier helps distinguish it from the sibling get_hansard_sitting_day. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, so an agent must infer the current-vs-historic distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The sentence 'Use to get details of a specific historic sitting day' merely restates the purpose rather than giving real guidance. It does not mention search_historic_sitting_days (the obvious alternative for lookups) or when a retrieval by exact date should be preferred over a search.

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

Deploy Server