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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (title, state, signature count, dates) and implying pagination behavior through the mention of 'returns' and context in the offset parameter description. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed error handling beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second details the return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. There is no wasted text.

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 (search with pagination), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and return fields, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it lacks usage guidelines and could benefit from more behavioral context like rate limits, but annotations provide safety coverage.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters (query, state, offset, limit). The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'by keyword' which aligns with the query parameter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline score of 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: 'Search UK Parliament petitions by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('UK Parliament petitions'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'parliament_search_hansard' or 'parliament_find_member'. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'parliament_search_hansard' for searching parliamentary debates or 'parliament_find_member' for finding members. There is no context about when this tool is appropriate or what alternatives exist for related queries.

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