UK Parliament MCP Server

get_member_focus

Retrieve a UK Parliament member's policy interests and focus areas by ID to understand their priorities and specializations.

Instructions

Get areas of focus and policy interests of a member by ID. Use when understanding what issues and policy areas a member prioritizes or specializes in.

    Args:
        member_id: Parliament member ID to get policy focus areas for.

    Returns:
        Areas of focus and policy interests of the member.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`member_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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The 'Get' verb and 'Returns' line imply a safe read operation, but there is no disclosure of permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. For a simple single-param lookup this is acceptable but 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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and is reasonably sized. The 'Returns' line largely restates the purpose and is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure is clean and scannable.

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 formatting need not be explained. For a one-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, context, and the argument adequately, leaving only sibling disambiguation as a gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the parameter and clarifies it is a 'Parliament member ID', which adds modest meaning, but gives no format, range, or source guidance for obtaining a valid ID.

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 areas of focus and policy interests of a member by ID'), which is clear and distinct from most siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_policy_interests or get_member_registered_interests, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

Provides a clear usage context ('Use when understanding what issues and policy areas a member prioritizes or specializes in'). It gives when-to-use but no when-not-to-use and does not name an alternative like get_policy_interests, so the agent gets no routing help between near-duplicate siblings.

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

Deploy Server