UK Parliament MCP Server

get_oral_evidence

Search UK Parliament committee oral evidence sessions and transcripts by committee, business, witness, or date to research testimonies and hearings.

Instructions

Search for oral evidence sessions from committee hearings. Use when researching witness testimonies, committee hearings, or transcripts from evidence sessions. Can filter by committee, business, witness names, or meeting dates. See also: get_oral_evidence_by_id, get_written_evidence.

    Args:
        committee_business_id: Optional: committee business ID to filter by.
        committee_id: Optional: committee ID to filter by.
        search_term: Optional: search term for evidence content or witness names.
        start_date: Optional: start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        end_date: Optional: end date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        show_on_website_only: Show only evidence visible on website.
        skip: Number of records to skip (for pagination).
        take: Number of records to return (default 30, max 100).

    Returns:
        Oral evidence sessions matching the criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	No
`search_term`	No
`committee_id`	No
`show_on_website_only`	No
`committee_business_id`	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

A4.1/5.0

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 practical behavior such as filter dimensions and pagination caps ('default 30, max 100'), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or result ordering. It is enough to call the tool but not a rich behavioral picture.

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 guidance are front-loaded in the first three sentences, followed by a well-structured Args list. The Args section partly restates the schema, but since the schema itself carries zero descriptions this redundancy is justified rather than wasteful.

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 need not explain return shape, and the one-line Returns statement is acceptable. Combined with full parameter documentation and usage context, the definition is nearly complete; the only missing piece is explicit guidance on when to prefer the by_id sibling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it documents all 8 parameters including a date format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and pagination semantics ('skip', 'take' default 30 max 100). A few entries are near-tautological ('committee_id: Optional: committee ID to filter by'), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 (Search) and resource (oral evidence sessions from committee hearings) and clarifies scope with 'witness testimonies, committee hearings, or transcripts.' The 'See also' line names the two closest siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from get_oral_evidence_by_id and get_written_evidence without inspecting either 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?

Provides clear context for when to use it ('researching witness testimonies, committee hearings, or transcripts') and names the two alternative tools. It does not, however, state the selecting condition between this search tool and get_oral_evidence_by_id (e.g. 'use by_id when you already have the ID'), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server