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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying it returns 'all members matching the name query' (open-world behavior), describes the return format (id, party, constituency, etc.), and mentions the id's purpose for other tools. No contradiction with annotations.

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 clearly, second sentence provides essential behavioral and output details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 has comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral context, and output format without needing to explain return values in detail.

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 'name' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no additional examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool searches for MPs/Lords by name (specific verb+resource). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the returned 'id' is required by parliament_member_debates and parliament_member_interests, showing differentiation from other parliamentary tools like parliament_search_hansard or parliament_search_petitions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for MPs/Lords by name) and implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning the returned id is required by two specific sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to other search tools like parliament_search_hansard.

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