UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits. The description adds value by specifying that it 'fetches committee metadata and member list in parallel', which provides behavioral context on concurrency not covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances understanding of the tool's execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail on parallel fetching. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while being informative.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies what data is retrieved and how, without needing to explain return values or extensive parameters. The context is adequately covered for this read-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'committee_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get detail') and resource ('parliamentary committee') with specific components ('metadata and member list'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'committees_search_committees' by focusing on detailed retrieval rather than search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more distinctive.

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

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

The description implies usage by referencing 'committee_id from committees_search_committees results', suggesting it follows a search operation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'parliament_find_member' or 'committees_search_evidence', and no exclusions are provided. Usage is contextually implied but not fully articulated.

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