UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses response truncation ('voter lists are truncated to 100 per side'), explains why ('to fit response limits'), and clarifies that 'total voter counts are always accurate regardless of truncation'. This provides crucial information about data completeness that annotations don't cover.

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 perfectly structured with three concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second explains a critical behavioral constraint, and the third clarifies data accuracy. Every sentence earns its place with essential 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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides exactly what's needed: it explains the tool's purpose, discloses important behavioral constraints about data truncation, and gives usage context. No gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 specific action ('Get full detail') and resource ('parliamentary division'), including the key component of 'how each member voted'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'votes_search_divisions' by focusing on detailed retrieval rather than searching.

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 context by mentioning 'division ID from votes_search_divisions results', suggesting this tool should be used after obtaining IDs from that sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond this implied relationship.

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