UK Parliament MCP Server

get_interest_category

Look up a UK Parliament register of interests category by ID to view its details and declaration type.

Instructions

Get a specific interest category by ID | register of interests, interest category, declaration type | Use to get details of a specific interest category | Returns category details

    Args:
        category_id: Interest category ID.

    Returns:
        Details of the specified interest category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category_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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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. It only implies a read via 'Get'/'Returns' and does not disclose whether the ID is validated, what happens on a missing category, or the response shape beyond 'category details'.

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?

Reasonably short and front-loaded, but the pipe-delimited keyword list and the redundant Args/Returns sections repeat information already conveyed by the opening sentences, so not every element earns its place.

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-value detail is not required. For a single-parameter lookup with no annotations, however, the description leaves behavior (errors, permissions, missing-ID handling) and parameter semantics undocumented, making it only minimally adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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, but 'category_id: Interest category ID' only restates the parameter name. It adds no format, range, or source-of-value information for the single required integer parameter.

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 ('Get a specific interest category by ID') and clearly identifies the lookup-by-identifier nature of the tool. It does not distinguish itself from the list-style sibling interests_categories or from get_interest_by_id, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Use to get details of a specific interest category' merely restates the purpose rather than giving conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives like interests_categories. No when-not guidance and no sibling named.

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

Deploy Server