UK Parliament MCP Server

search_treaties_advanced

Search UK Parliament treaties by department, series, scrutiny status, debate, motions, or committee concerns, and return matching treaties with their scrutiny status.

Instructions

Advanced treaty search with full filtering | treaties, controversial treaties, committee concerns, scrutiny status | Use to find treaties by department, scrutiny status, or with parliamentary concerns | Returns treaties matching all specified filters

    Args:
        search_text: Optional: search term for treaty titles/content.
        government_organisation_id: Optional: filter by laying department ID (get IDs from get_treaty_government_organisations).
        series: Optional: treaty series type - 'CountrySeriesMembership', 'EuropeanUnionSeriesMembership', or 'MiscellaneousSeriesMembership'.
        parliamentary_process: Optional: 'NotConcluded' or 'Concluded'.
        debate_scheduled: Optional: filter to treaties where debate has been scheduled.
        motions_tabled: Optional: filter to treaties where motions have been tabled.
        committee_raised_concerns: Optional: filter to treaties where a committee has raised concerns.
        house: Optional: 'Commons' or 'Lords' (1 or 2 also accepted).
        skip: Number of records to skip (for pagination).
        take: Number of records to return (default 20).

    Returns:
        Treaties matching the specified filters with scrutiny status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`house`	No
`series`	No
`search_text`	No
`motions_tabled`	No
`debate_scheduled`	No
`parliamentary_process`	No
`committee_raised_concerns`	No
`government_organisation_id`	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

A3.8/5.0

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 that filters are ANDed ('matching all specified filters') and that pagination is via skip/take, which is genuinely useful, but it never confirms the read-only nature, states permission/auth requirements, or notes rate limits for this search endpoint.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then Args, then Returns in a predictable order that an agent can parse. The pipe-delimited keyword header ('treaties, controversial treaties, committee concerns, scrutiny status') is somewhat redundant with the following 'Use to find' sentence, adding minor bloat.

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 a read-only filtered search with an output schema (so return format needn't be explained) and ten optional params fully documented, the description is close to complete. The only gap is that the read-only/mutation character is left implicit since no annotations exist to confirm it.

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%, yet the Args block documents all 10 parameters, including enum values absent from the schema ('CountrySeriesMembership'/'EuropeanUnionSeriesMembership'/'MiscellaneousSeriesMembership', 'NotConcluded'/'Concluded', 'Commons'/'Lords') and a cross-reference to get_treaty_government_organisations for obtaining IDs. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 ('Advanced treaty search with full filtering') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (department, scrutiny status, parliamentary concerns). The 'advanced' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_treaties, but the description never names that basic alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a usable context sentence ('Use to find treaties by department, scrutiny status, or with parliamentary concerns'), which implies when to reach for it. However it offers no when-not guidance and never points to the sibling search_treaties or get_treaty for narrower lookups, so the agent must guess at boundaries.

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

Deploy Server