UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (committee names, house, active status) and the relationship to another tool, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter documented in schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return values. Second sentence provides clear sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Complete for a search/list tool with excellent annotations and 100% schema coverage. The description provides exactly what's needed: purpose, return data, and sibling relationship. With output schema existing, it doesn't need to explain return values further.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search or list') and resource ('UK parliamentary select committees'), and distinguishes from sibling 'committees_get_committee' by specifying that tool is for membership detail. It's specific about scope (returns committee names, house, and active status).

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?

Explicitly states when to use an alternative tool ('Use committees_get_committee with the committee ID for membership detail'). Also provides implicit guidance by specifying what this tool returns versus what the sibling provides for deeper detail.

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