UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Contributions In A Debate

law_parliament_get_debate_contributions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve verbatim UK Parliament debate contributions by debate ID, optionally filtered to a specific member. Get every contribution a member made regardless of wording, ensuring no remarks are missed.

Instructions

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a debate_ext_id and want verbatim contributions, optionally filtered to one member.

Canonical path for "everything a member said in this debate" regardless of vocabulary — text-search tools (parliament_member_debates, parliament_search_hansard) filter by contribution TEXT, dropping members who spoke without using your phrase verbatim. This tool filters by MemberId on the debate's Items list, so vocabulary doesn't matter.

Typical chain: parliament_find_member(name) → member_id, then parliament_search_hansard or parliament_lookup_by_column → debate_ext_id, then this tool. The parliament module's instructions describe the full composition pattern.

Without member_id, returns every contribution (~100-200 for a long debate).

If the wire returns no contributions for a member you expect to have spoken, report the empty result honestly — do NOT reconstruct quotes from training data. Authoritative source for member contributions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`member_id`	No	Optional integer Members API ID. When given, only that member's contributions in this debate are returned — regardless of which words they used. Resolves via parliament_find_member. When omitted, every contribution in the debate is returned (typical debate: 100-200 items).
`debate_ext_id`	Yes	Debate GUID (DebateSectionExtId). Chain from parliament_search_hansard top_debates[].debate_ext_id, parliament_lookup_by_column matches[].debate_ext_id, or any tool that surfaces a debate identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size requested
`topic`	No	Topic phrase filter applied, if any
`total`	Yes	Number of contributions returned in this call
`offset`	No	Skip applied to this page
`has_more`	No	True if a full page was returned (more may exist)
`member_id`	Yes	Parliament Members API member ID
`contributions`	No	Hansard contributions for the member. Each `text` field is capped at 3000 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description goes beyond them by disclosing result volume (~100-200 when unfiltered), the exact field the filter operates on (MemberId on Items list), and a strong honesty directive against fabricating quotes. That is genuinely additive behavioral context.

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 the trigger and canonical-purpose statement, then chains and caveats. Slightly long with some repetition of the member-list filtering idea across paragraphs, but every block earns its place. Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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, the description needn't explain return shape, and it instead supplies the decision context an agent needs: when to use it, how to decompose the ID, how it differs from text search, and what to do on empty results. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents both params fully; baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the semantic reason member_id matters ('vocabulary doesn't matter') and the expected result size when omitted, tying the parameter to the user's actual goal.

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 specific verb+resource ('get verbatim contributions' for a debate_ext_id) and explicitly contrasts with sibling text-search tools (parliament_member_debates, parliament_search_hansard), explaining they filter by text while this filters by MemberId. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('WHEN you have a debate_ext_id'), the alternative tools and why they fail here, and a concrete typical chaining sequence. It even states the fallback/empty-result policy, leaving nothing ambiguous.

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

Deploy Server