UK Parliament MCP Server

search_hansard_committees

Find UK Parliament committees by name or keyword in Hansard records, with optional house and date filters.

Instructions

Search committees that appear in Hansard | Hansard, committee search, parliamentary committees | Use to find committees by name or keyword in Hansard records | Returns committees matching the search criteria

    Args:
        house: Optional: house - 1 or 'Commons', 2 or 'Lords'.
        start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional).
        end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional).
        search_term: Search term (optional).
        skip: Number of results to skip for pagination (default 0).
        take: Number of results to return (default 20).

    Returns:
        Committees matching the search criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`house`	No
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	No
`search_term`	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

B3.4/5.0

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 behavior (skip default 0, take default 20) and that results are committee matches, but says nothing about read-only safety, result limits/caps, authentication, or ordering of results. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a query tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The docstring layout (Args/Returns) is scannable and front-loaded, but there is real waste: a redundant SEO-style keyword line and the return sentence stated twice (in the header and under Returns). Trimming those would cost no information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all parameters are documented. What is missing is the context an agent needs to choose this tool over the crowded set of sibling committee/Hansard search tools, plus any note on result caps or default ordering.

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%, yet the description documents all six parameters, including the non-obvious mapping house: 1/'Commons', 2/'Lords' and the YYYY-MM-DD date format that the schema does not convey. It does not explain how search_term matches (name vs keyword) or how skip/take interact with total results, so it falls short of fully compensating.

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 committees that appear in Hansard") that an agent can act on. However, the pipe-delimited second segment ("Hansard, committee search, parliamentary committees") is keyword stuffing that adds no meaning, and the description never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as search_committees or search_committee_debates.

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?

"Use to find committees by name or keyword in Hansard records" gives implied usage, which is adequate but shallow. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the many alternative committee-search tools available (search_committees, get_committee_summary, search_committee_debates), leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server