UK Parliament MCP Server

get_interest_by_id

Retrieve a specific UK Parliament registered interest declaration by ID to view financial interest details and disclosure records.

Instructions

Get a specific registered interest by ID | register of interests, financial interest, declaration | Use to retrieve a specific interest declaration by its ID | Returns interest details

    Args:
        interest_id: Interest record ID.

    Returns:
        Details of the specified interest declaration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`interest_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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior on a missing/invalid ID, or scope. For a low-risk single-record getter this is adequate but 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 same idea is stated three times ('Get a specific registered interest by ID' / 'Use to retrieve a specific interest declaration by its ID' / 'Returns interest details'), and the Returns block duplicates an output schema that already exists. The intent is front-loaded, but the redundancy costs it.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter's meaning, and the return scope. The remaining gap — how this differs from the other interests/register tools — is a routing concern rather than a missing operational detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 for the single undocumented parameter. It does state 'interest_id: Interest record ID,' which confirms the identifier's meaning, but adds no type, format, or sourcing detail beyond the parameter name itself.

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?

The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Get a specific registered interest by ID,' and adds topical keywords (register of interests, financial interest, declaration). It does not differentiate from near-siblings like get_register_by_id, search_roi, or get_member_registered_interests, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 retrieve a specific interest declaration by its ID' implies the lookup-by-known-ID case, but no alternatives are named and no when-not guidance is given. An agent choosing between this and search_roi or get_member_registered_interests gets only a weak signal.

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

Deploy Server