UK Parliament MCP Server

search_bill_petitions

Search public petitions submitted on Private Bills by keyword, committee, or date range. Returns matching petition details.

Instructions

Search petitions on Private Bills | private bill petitions, public petitions | Use to find public petitions submitted on Private Bills | Returns petitions with details

    Args:
        committee_business_id: Optional: filter by committee business ID.
        committee_id: Optional: filter by committee ID.
        search_term: Optional: search term for petition content.
        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 petitions visible on website.
        skip: Number of records to skip (for pagination).
        take: Number of records to return (default 30).

    Returns:
        Bill petitions 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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 says only 'Returns petitions with details', disclosing nothing about permissions, result volume, ordering, or how pagination interacts with the default take=30 — significant gaps for an unannotated search tool.

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?

Purpose, keywords, and usage are front-loaded, which is good. However, the Args block largely restates the schema's own titles/defaults, adding bulk that is only marginally informative.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and parameters but leaves the apparent public-vs-private petition scope ambiguous and gives no behavioral context for an unannotated tool.

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 eight parameters with brief meanings (filters, date format YYYY-MM-DD, pagination defaults). It still doesn't clarify the distinction between committee_id and committee_business_id, keeping it short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Search petitions on Private Bills') and clarifies the target with 'find public petitions submitted on Private Bills'. The keyword line 'private bill petitions, public petitions' is slightly muddled, but an agent can tell this apart from search_hansard_petitions and get_bill_petition_by_id well enough.

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?

It states a use case ('Use to find public petitions submitted on Private Bills') but offers no exclusions or alternatives, even though nearby siblings like search_hansard_petitions and get_bill_petition_by_id overlap in domain. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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

Deploy Server