Skip to main content
Glama
ChrisBrooksbank

UK Parliament MCP Server

by ChrisBrooksbank
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_si_business_items

Retrieve debates, motions, and scrutiny outcomes for a UK statutory instrument using its ID, so you can track its parliamentary progress and dates.

Instructions

Get SI business items | SI progress, scrutiny, debates, motions | Get business items (debates, motions) for an SI | Returns list of business items with dates and outcomes

    Args:
        instrument_id: The SI ID (alphanumeric string from search results).

    Returns:
        Business items for the SI with dates and outcomes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instrument_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 that the tool is a read operation returning a list of business items with dates and outcomes, which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result size, or what an empty result means.

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 content is short but redundant: the same idea ('business items (debates, motions) for an SI', 'returns ... with dates and outcomes') is restated three times across the header, body, and Returns block. The key fact is front-loaded, but the repetition costs it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the single parameter is well covered. What is missing is usage context against the many sibling SI/business-item tools, leaving the agent to guess when this one applies.

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: it explains instrument_id is the SI ID and that it is an alphanumeric string obtained from search results, telling the agent both the format and provenance of the value.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get business items (debates, motions) for an SI', with the domain (SI progress, scrutiny) named. It is distinguishable from generic bill or committee tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling get_si_timeline_business_items.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like search_statutory_instruments and get_si_timeline_business_items in the list, an agent gets no help deciding which SI-related tool fits which need.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools