UK Parliament MCP Server

get_written_evidence

Search UK Parliament committee written evidence submissions by committee, business, witness, or publication date to research stakeholder and public input to inquiries.

Instructions

Search for written evidence submissions to committees. Use when researching stakeholder submissions, witness statements, or public input to committee inquiries. Can filter by committee, business, witness names, or publication dates. See also: get_written_evidence_by_id, get_oral_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:
        Written evidence submissions 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 behavioral burden. It discloses useful operational traits (date format, pagination via skip/take, default 30 and max 100), but says nothing about authorization needs, result ordering, or whether search_term is full-text across witnesses and content.

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 usage are front-loaded in two sentences before the Args/Returns blocks, which is the right order. The Args block is somewhat redundant against the schema but justified given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

With 8 optional params and an output schema present, the description covers the filter set, pagination, and return intent adequately. Return-value detail is rightly omitted since an output schema exists; the main gap is richer guidance on choosing between this and its sibling evidence tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all 8 parameters with their filtering intent. It adds meaning beyond the schema for start/end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and pagination semantics, though most entries largely restate the parameter names.

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 ('Search for written evidence submissions to committees') and explicitly names the two closest siblings (get_written_evidence_by_id, get_oral_evidence), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete research scenarios ('stakeholder submissions, witness statements, or public input to committee inquiries') that indicate when to reach for it, and points to alternatives. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus the sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server