UK Parliament MCP Server

get_lords_divisions_search_count

Count House of Lords divisions matching topic, member, date, or division number criteria. Use the total count to size a search before fetching detailed results.

Instructions

Count House of Lords divisions matching search criteria | number of votes, how many divisions | Use to size a search before fetching results with search_lords_divisions | Returns the total count.

    Args:
        search_term: Optional: search term for division topics (e.g. 'brexit', 'climate', 'NHS').
        member_id: Optional: only divisions this member voted in.
        start_date: Optional: start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        end_date: Optional: end date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        division_number: Optional: specific division number.
        include_when_member_was_teller: Optional: include divisions where the member was a teller.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	No
`member_id`	No
`start_date`	No
`search_term`	No
`division_number`	No
`include_when_member_was_teller`	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

A4.3/5.0

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 burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a total count (a non-mutating read), which is the key behavioral fact, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the count is exact. Adequate for a simple count endpoint, not rich.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first line, followed by a useful Args block. The pipe-separated keyword fragment ('| number of votes, how many divisions |') is slightly stuffing-like but compact and harmless.

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, return values need not be detailed, and the description still states 'Returns the total count'. Given six parameters at 0% schema coverage, the Args block makes the definition complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must carry all six parameters, and it does: it marks each as optional and adds formats and meaning (YYYY-MM-DD for dates, example search terms, member-scoped voting, teller inclusion) that the bare schema lacks. Some entries are thin ('specific division number') but overall it compensates well.

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 ('Count') and resource ('House of Lords divisions') plus scope ('matching search criteria'), and the keyword line 'number of votes, how many divisions' reinforces intent. It is clearly distinguishable from the Commons counterpart (get_commons_divisions_search_count) and from the fetching sibling search_lords_divisions.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs 'Use to size a search before fetching results with search_lords_divisions', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The only gap is the absence of an explicit 'do not use this to fetch records' exclusion, but the routing is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server