UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what the tool returns (division summaries including title, date, vote counts, and pass/fail status) and clarifies the relationship with the sibling tool. While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description provides practical output details that help the agent understand what to expect.

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 concise with two focused sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second provides output details and sibling tool guidance. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, output summary, and sibling tool differentiation. It doesn't need to explain parameters or safety aspects since those are covered elsewhere.

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 provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value regarding parameter usage or semantics.

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 parliamentary divisions (votes) in Commons or Lords, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'parliamentary divisions'. It distinguishes from sibling tool votes_get_division by mentioning that tool provides full voter lists while this returns summaries.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use votes_get_division with the division ID for full voter lists.' This clearly distinguishes this search tool from its sibling that provides detailed results, helping the agent choose the right tool based on whether summaries or detailed voter lists are needed.

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