UK Parliament MCP Server

search_commons_divisions

Search House of Commons divisions and voting records by topic, MP, date range, or division number to find how MPs voted on bills, amendments, or issues. Returns vote counts.

Instructions

Search Commons divisions | House of Commons votes, Commons voting records, how MPs voted | Use to find how MPs voted on bills, amendments or issues; filter by member, date range or division number | Returns matching divisions with vote counts. See also: search_lords_divisions, get_commons_division_by_id, compare_member_votes.

    Args:
        search_term: Optional: search term for division topics (e.g. 'brexit', 'climate', 'NHS').
        member_id: Optional: only divisions this member voted in.
        start_date: Optional: start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        end_date: Optional: end date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
        division_number: Optional: specific division number.
        include_when_member_was_teller: Optional: include divisions where the member was a teller.
        skip: Number of records to skip (for pagination).
        take: Number of records to return (default 25, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`end_date`	No
`member_id`	No
`start_date`	No
`search_term`	No
`division_number`	No
`include_when_member_was_teller`	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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are divisions with vote counts and documents pagination bounds ('default 25, max 100'), which is useful. It does not state permission requirements, whether results are cached/live, or how vote counts are structured, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

The summary is front-loaded and the Args block is well organized one-parameter-per-line. The opening line repeats the same idea three ways ('Commons divisions | House of Commons votes, Commons voting records, how MPs voted'), which is mild keyword padding rather than added information.

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 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the definition covers what to search, how to filter, pagination limits, and the return shape at a summary level. The remaining gap is operational context (auth, rate limits) that a no-annotation mutation-adjacent tool would ideally state, but the read-only search nature makes this minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 entirely, and it does: every one of the 8 parameters is explained with meaning, format, and in several cases examples ('brexit', 'climate', 'NHS'), date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and default/max values for take. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 Commons divisions'), then immediately qualifies it with 'House of Commons votes, Commons voting records, how MPs voted', which cleanly separates it from the Lords counterpart. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 an explicit usage trigger ('Use to find how MPs voted on bills, amendments or issues') and names three related tools (search_lords_divisions, get_commons_division_by_id, compare_member_votes). It stops short of stating when to prefer each alternative over this one, so routing is implied rather than fully resolved.

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

Deploy Server