UK Parliament MCP Server

get_my_mp

Find your MP by postcode and get their full profile, including constituency, biography, interests, election results, and voting record. Optionally filter votes by topic.

Instructions

Find your MP by postcode and get their full profile - combines postcode lookup, biography, interests, election result, and voting | who is my MP, postcode lookup, constituency MP, local representative | Use when someone wants to find their MP from a postcode | Returns MP profile with constituency, biography, interests, election results, and recent votes (and how they voted on a topic, if given). Combines: search_members (location), get_members_biography, search_roi, get_member_latest_election_result, get_member_voting, get_commons_voting_record_for_member. See also: get_mp_profile, check_mp_vote.

    Args:
        postcode: UK postcode to look up (e.g., 'SW1A 1AA', 'N1 9GU').
        topic: Optional topic keyword to filter votes (e.g., 'climate', 'NHS').

    Returns:
        Combined MP profile with constituency, biography, interests, election result, and voting data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No
`postcode`	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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious trait: this is a composite that internally combines search_members, get_members_biography, search_roi, get_member_latest_election_result, get_member_voting, and get_commons_voting_record_for_member. It also states the conditional behavior for topic ('how they voted on a topic, if given'). It does not state read-only status explicitly or any cost/latency implications of the multi-call aggregation.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the pipe-delimited synonym/keyword section is efficient, but the returned-field list is enumerated three separate times (intro clause, 'Returns MP profile with...', and the Returns block), which is wasted repetition in an otherwise well-structured description.

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 the description needn't define return values, yet it still summarizes them; combined with documented args, composition, and usage trigger, the definition is nearly complete for a 2-param aggregate tool. The missing piece is guidance on failure modes or the cost of the multi-tool fan-out.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: postcode is given format examples ('SW1A 1AA', 'N1 9GU') and topic is described as an optional keyword filter with examples ('climate', 'NHS'). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't cover malformed-postcode or no-match handling.

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 and resource ('Find your MP by postcode and get their full profile') and explicitly frames itself as an aggregate of six named sibling tools. An agent can distinguish it from get_mp_profile and check_mp_vote without opening any schema.

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 when someone wants to find their MP from a postcode' gives a clear trigger condition, and the 'See also' line names get_mp_profile and check_mp_vote as related alternatives. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this versus those siblings, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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

Deploy Server