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 behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains pagination mechanics (has_more flag, offset incrementing), default limits, and the rationale for description length caps to prevent context blow-up. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with four focused sentences: purpose statement, pagination explanation, description cap rationale, and prerequisite tool. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity (pagination, filtering, content capping), the description provides complete contextual guidance. With annotations covering safety aspects, an output schema presumably detailing the response structure, and the description explaining usage patterns and constraints, all necessary information is present.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the purpose of max_description_chars ('forensic provenance work') and pagination logic, but most parameter meaning is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Look up registered financial interests for a member of Parliament.' It specifies the verb ('look up') and resource ('financial interests'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'parliament_find_member' by focusing on interests rather than member identification.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use parliament_find_member first to obtain the integer member_id.' It also offers clear pagination instructions for prolific members and advises on parameter adjustments for different use cases (e.g., forensic work).

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