UK Parliament MCP Server

get_member_voting

Retrieve a UK Parliament member's voting records by ID for the Commons or Lords. Use to analyze voting patterns, stance on issues, or voting history.

Instructions

Get voting records of a member by ID for a specific house. Use when analyzing how a member votes, their voting patterns, or their stance on particular issues through their voting history. See also: check_mp_vote, get_commons_voting_record_for_member, get_lords_voting_record_for_member.

    Args:
        member_id: Parliament member ID to get voting record for.
        house: House: 1 or 'Commons', 2 or 'Lords'.
        page: Optional page number, 20 votes per page. Page 1 (the default) is the most recent; the API's "skip" field reads 20 on page 1, which is a quirk, not an offset.

    Returns:
        Voting records of the member, newest first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`house`	Yes
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: pagination (20 votes per page), default ordering ('Page 1 ... most recent'), return ordering ('newest first'), and even an API quirk ('the API's "skip" field reads 20 on page 1'). That is well beyond the schema, though it omits any auth or rate-limit context.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then Args/Returns sections that are easy to scan. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence (especially the pagination quirk) earns its place and nothing is padded.

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, yet the description still adds return ordering. Parameter behavior, house enum values, and pagination quirks are covered, so an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly. The one real gap is routing guidance versus the commons/lords-specific siblings.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It documents member_id, the house values ('1 or Commons, 2 or Lords'), and page semantics including the 20-per-page size and the skip quirk that no schema would convey. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare types.

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 voting records of a member by ID for a specific house'), which is unambiguous. It names related siblings, but does not explain why an agent should pick this tool over get_commons_voting_record_for_member or get_lords_voting_record_for_member, which appear functionally near-identical. Clear purpose, weak sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives a usage context ('analyzing how a member votes, their voting patterns, or their stance on particular issues'), which is genuinely helpful. However, the 'See also' line is a bare list with no conditions for selecting among the alternatives, and given the semantics-overlapping siblings, that differentiation is exactly what is missing.

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

Deploy Server