UK Parliament MCP Server

search_written_statements

Search UK Parliament written ministerial statements by keyword, minister, department, or date to track government announcements and policy communications.

Instructions

Search written ministerial statements | written statements, ministerial statements, government announcements, policy statements | Use for tracking government announcements, researching policy statements, or finding ministerial communications on specific topics | Returns statements with minister, department, dates, and statement content See also: get_written_statement, search_written_questions.

    Args:
        search_term: Text to search for in statement content.
        member_id: Filter by the minister ID who made the statement.
        answering_body_id: Filter by government department.
        made_from: Start date for when statement was made (YYYY-MM-DD).
        made_to: End date for when statement was made (YYYY-MM-DD).
        house: Filter by house: 'Commons', 'Lords' or 'Bicameral' (1 or 2 also accepted).
        skip: Number of records to skip for pagination. Default: 0.
        take: Number of records to return. Default: 20.

    Returns:
        Written statements matching the search criteria with minister, department, and content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	No
`take`	No
`house`	No
`made_to`	No
`made_from`	No
`member_id`	No
`search_term`	No
`answering_body_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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination parameters and return fields, but does not state whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Search'), any rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 description is structured with a clear purpose, Args, and Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and keywords, but the keyword list is somewhat redundant. Overall, it is appropriately sized and every part serves a purpose.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and return values, but does not cover behavioral aspects like safety or error handling. The mention of 'See also' helps with sibling context, but more could be done to distinguish this from search_written_questions.

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 provides no parameter descriptions. The description does define each parameter in the Args section (e.g., 'search_term: Text to search for in statement content'), which compensates for the lack of schema details. However, it could add more specificity like search behavior or default explanations beyond the schema defaults.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Search written ministerial statements' with a list of related keywords. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning 'See also: get_written_statement, search_written_questions', though it lacks explicit differentiation from search_written_questions beyond naming it.

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 description provides some implied usage: 'Use for tracking government announcements, researching policy statements, or finding ministerial communications on specific topics'. However, it does not specify when to use this versus alternatives like get_written_statement or search_written_questions, leaving the agent to infer.

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

Deploy Server