UK Parliament MCP Server

get_state_of_parties

Retrieve current or historical party seat counts for the UK Commons or Lords by date. See how many seats each party holds to assess composition and majority.

Instructions

Get party seat counts | party breakdown, seats, composition, majority | Get number of seats held by each party in a house | Returns party names with seat counts See also: parties_list_by_house.

    Args:
        house: 1 for Commons, 2 for Lords.
        for_date: Date for the party composition (YYYY-MM-DD). Use today's date for current.

    Returns:
        Party names with seat counts for the specified house.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`house`	Yes
`for_date`	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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (party names with seat counts) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior for historical vs current dates beyond a brief hint. Adequate for a simple read 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and structured, but the first line and the 'Returns' section both restate 'party names with seat counts,' and the pipe-delimited keyword list duplicates the purpose statement. Some redundancy trims the efficiency.

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 values need not be detailed, and both required parameters are explained. The main gap is the absent when-to-use distinction from parties_list_by_house, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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: 'house: 1 for Commons, 2 for Lords' documents the otherwise opaque anyOf integer/string parameter, and 'for_date: ... (YYYY-MM-DD). Use today's date for current' supplies format and a default. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get number of seats held by each party in a house.' It also names the closely related sibling (parties_list_by_house), letting an agent distinguish it without opening 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The 'See also: parties_list_by_house' pointer hints at an alternative but never states when to choose one over the other. Usage is implied (get composition for a given house/date) rather than explicitly bounded.

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

Deploy Server