UK Parliament MCP Server

search_lords_divisions

Search House of Lords divisions to find how Lords voted on bills or amendments; filter by member, date range, or vote margin to identify close or contested votes. Returns divisions with vote counts.

Instructions

Search Lords divisions | House of Lords votes, Lords voting records, how Lords voted | Use to find how Lords voted on bills, amendments or issues or find close/contested votes; filter by member, date range or division number | Returns matching divisions with vote counts. See also: search_commons_divisions, get_lords_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.
        majority_comparator: Optional: compare majority - 'LessThan', 'LessThanOrEqualTo', 'EqualTo', 'GreaterThanOrEqualTo', 'GreaterThan'. Use with majority_value to find close votes.
        majority_value: Optional: majority threshold to compare against (e.g., 10 to find votes with margin < 10).
        total_votes_comparator: Optional: compare total votes - same options as majority_comparator.
        total_votes_value: Optional: total votes threshold to compare against.
        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
`majority_value`	No
`division_number`	No
`total_votes_value`	No
`majority_comparator`	No
`total_votes_comparator`	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

A4.3/5.0

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 does disclose that results are 'matching divisions with vote counts' and documents pagination defaults ('default 25, max 100'), which is useful. But it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation, which for a 12-parameter query tool is a moderate gap.

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 purpose and routing sentence is front-loaded before the Args block, and each parameter line is terse. It is long overall, but the length is driven by the 12 parameters, each of which earns its place; there is little redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, yet the description still notes vote counts. All 12 parameters, their formats, enum values, and pagination limits are covered, and sibling alternatives are named. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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, and it does thoroughly: every one of the 12 parameters is documented in the Args block, including date format (YYYY-MM-DD), the enumerated comparator values ('LessThan', 'LessThanOrEqualTo', etc.), how majority_value pairs with majority_comparator, and pagination defaults.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search Lords divisions'), clarifies the domain ('House of Lords votes, Lords voting records'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming search_commons_divisions, get_lords_division_by_id, and compare_member_votes. An agent can route correctly 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?

It states concrete use cases ('find how Lords voted on bills, amendments or issues or find close/contested votes') and the filtering dimensions available. It also names related tools. However, it does not say when to prefer get_lords_division_by_id or compare_member_votes over this one, so the alternative selection is left 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