UK Parliament MCP Server

search_erskine_may_index

Find index entries in Erskine May by keyword. Retrieve matching terms with pagination controls.

Instructions

Search the Erskine May index for terms | index search, find topics | Use to find index entries by keyword | Returns matching index terms.

    Args:
        search_term: Term to search for in the index.
        skip: Number of results to skip for pagination (default 0).
        take: Number of results to return (default 30).

    Returns:
        Index terms matching the search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`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

B3.3/5.0

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 burden. It discloses pagination via skip/take with defaults (added context). But it doesn't say what an 'index term' result contains beyond the output schema, and there's no info on matching behavior (substring, fuzzy, exact) which matters for a keyword search.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description crams the same idea twice: the opening 'Search the Erskine May index for terms | index search, find topics' is a fragment/piping artifact that adds no information, and it's not front-loaded cleanly. The Args/Returns framing is boilerplate for a 3-param tool. Efficiency is poor.

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 3 params (1 required) and an output schema present, the tool is simple, so an agent has enough to invoke it. The only real gap is lack of routing guidance versus the many Erskine May / search siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema titles alone (search_term, skip, take) do almost nothing. The description's Args section documents all three params including the pagination defaults, which is meaningful compensation. Still thin on search_term semantics (substring match? whole word?).

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+resource: search the Erskine May index for terms. Distinguishable from sibling search_erskine_may (full-text) and browse_erskine_may_index (browse vs. keyword). Naming the specific index context is a plus.

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 phrase 'Use to find index entries by keyword' implies its use case, and 'index search, find topics' gives some framing. But it never names the alternative sibling (search_erskine_may_sections, browse_erskine_may_index, get_erskine_may_index_term), so an agent has no explicit routing signal.

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

Deploy Server