UK Parliament MCP Server

search_statutory_instruments

Search UK Statutory Instruments and proposed negative SIs by name, procedure, department, laying body, or house to research secondary legislation and government regulations.

Instructions

Search for Statutory Instruments (secondary legislation), including proposed negative SIs (PNSIs) under sifting. Use when researching government regulations, rules, or orders made under primary legislation. SIs are used to implement or modify laws. See also: get_statutory_instrument, get_si_business_items, get_annulment_date.

    Args:
        name: Optional. Name or title of the statutory instrument to search for.
        procedure_id: Optional. Procedure ID from get_si_procedures() (e.g. the "Proposed negative statutory instrument" procedure to list PNSIs).
        recommended_for_procedure_change: Optional. Only PNSIs a sifting committee recommended for the affirmative procedure.
        laying_body_id: Optional. Laying body ID from get_laying_bodies().
        department_id: Optional. Government department ID.
        house: Optional: 'Commons' or 'Lords' (1 or 2 also accepted).
        skip: Number of records to skip (pagination, default 0).
        take: Number of records to return (default 20).

    Returns:
        Statutory Instruments matching the filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`house`	No
`procedure_id`	No
`department_id`	No
`laying_body_id`	No
`recommended_for_procedure_change`	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 full burden. It discloses pagination semantics (skip default 0, take default 20) and implies a read-only search, but says nothing about authenticated access, result-count caps, sort order, or how PNSI/sifting records are returned. Adequate but thin for a 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the Args block is cleanly enumerated. The sentence 'SIs are used to implement or modify laws' is slightly expendable background, and the one-line Returns is redundant given an output schema exists, but overall the layout is tight and scannable.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional search with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, usage, every parameter, and ID provenance sources. The gaps are behavioral (auth, limits, ordering) rather than structural, and return values are legitimately delegated to the output schema.

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: all 8 parameters are explained, including accepted values for 'house' ('Commons' or 'Lords', or 1/2) and the provenance of opaque IDs ('procedure_id from get_si_procedures()', 'laying_body_id from get_laying_bodies()'). This is meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 concrete verb ('Search') and resource ('Statutory Instruments'), then scopes it with a definition ('secondary legislation') and a special subset ('proposed negative SIs (PNSIs) under sifting'). The 'See also' list names the relevant siblings (get_statutory_instrument, get_si_business_items, get_annulment_date), so an agent can distinguish this from the single-item and business-item tools.

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 when-to-use trigger ('Use when researching government regulations, rules, or orders made under primary legislation') and routes to alternatives via 'See also'. It lacks an explicit when-NOT condition (e.g. use get_statutory_instrument when you already have an ID), which keeps it from a 5.

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

Deploy Server