UK Parliament MCP Server

search_committees

Find UK Parliament committees by name or policy area to see which committee covers a topic and research committee work.

Instructions

Search for parliamentary committees by name or subject area. Use when you need to find which committee covers a specific policy area or when researching committee work. See also: get_committee_summary, get_committee_by_id, get_committee_bills.

    Args:
        search_term: Search term for committee names or subject areas (e.g. 'Treasury', 'Health', 'Defence').

    Returns:
        Matching committees with details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search_term`	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 full disclosure burden. It discloses the return shape at a high level ('matching committees with details') and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy), or empty-result handling.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then usage, then siblings, then Args/Returns. The 'Returns: Matching committees with details' line is largely redundant given the output schema exists, but the rest is tight and earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter search with an output schema handling return values, the description covers purpose, usage and argument semantics adequately. The remaining gap is operational detail (result limits/pagination), which matters less for a simple lookup.

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% for the single string parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies the term matches committee names OR subject areas and supplies examples ('Treasury', 'Health', 'Defence'). That materially reduces ambiguity about what to pass.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for parliamentary committees') plus the searchable dimensions (name, subject area). It names sibling tools via 'See also', but does not explain how search_committees differs in intent from get_committee_by_id or get_committee_summary, so an agent must infer.

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 two concrete when-to-use contexts: finding which committee covers a policy area, and researching committee work. The 'See also' list points at alternatives but stops short of stating which condition selects each one.

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

Deploy Server