UK Parliament MCP Server

get_member_committee_memberships

Find which committees a UK Parliament member serves on, with optional filters for current/former status and committee category.

Instructions

Get committee memberships for one or more members | member committees, MP committees | Use to find which committees a member serves on. Returns committee memberships for the specified members. See also: get_committee_members.

    Args:
        member_ids: Comma-separated list of member IDs (e.g. '4514' or '4514,172').
        membership_status: Optional: filter by status (e.g. 'Current', 'Former').
        committee_category: Optional: filter by committee category.

    Returns:
        Committee memberships for the members.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`member_ids`	Yes
`membership_status`	No
`committee_category`	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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the filter semantics (status, category) and that results are scoped to the supplied members. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or behavior for invalid/unknown member IDs, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Wait — see below.

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 correctly omitted. Purpose, all three parameters, filter semantics, and the related sibling are covered; only edge-case behavior (invalid IDs, result size) is unaddressed.

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 compensate, and it does: member_ids format (comma-separated, with example '4514,172'), membership_status example values ('Current', 'Former'), and committee_category's role are all documented. Only committee_category lacks example values or accepted forms.

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: retrieving committee memberships for members, with a plain-language restatement ('which committees a member serves on'). It names the reverse-direction sibling get_committee_members, so the agent can distinguish directionality, though it does not spell out the contrast in scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use to find which committees a member serves on' gives clear intended context, and 'See also: get_committee_members' points at the closest alternative. It stops short of stating when to prefer that alternative over this tool, so it falls just under explicit routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server