As Hungarian terms are so often mirror translationsof German terms, I think there had to be something like that there. Not sure if still, and not sure if in the Anglosphere.
The eszmetörténész in Hungary which can be probably translated to German as Ideengeschichtler but the English term historian of ideas does not really catch it, is not simply someone who focuses on the history of political philosophy. Rather he focuses on "normal" history, the history of political events from the viewpoint of the more philosophical ideas that inspired them.
So for example you can look at the French Revolution from the viewpoint of economic class relations. In this case, you are likely a Marxist.
You can look at it from the viewpoint of rules, laws and rights. In that case, you are likely to be a liberal. Think Mike Duncan from Revolutions Podcast.
Or you can look at it how the ideas of Montaigne inspired its first half and the ideas of Rousseau inspired the second half. This is what we call being a historian of ideas in Hungary. These people have a certain tendency towards conservatism or classical liberalism, although this tendency is not necessarily very strong. It is just that if you believe humans have free will and what we believe does matters, if you believe history is not only determined by objective conditions, nor does it have a necessarily built-in Whig direction of progress, but basically people have a choice between believing different ideas, so no inherent necessity made the French people around the Revolution accept the ideas of Montaigne or Rousseau over the ideas of say de Maistre, but rather that they simply chose to accept those ideas, and in theory could have decided to choose otherwise - that does sound a tad conservative? But obviously we are not talking about Rush Limbaugh here, but something like something that could be published in The New Criterion.
In the Anglophone academy this would broadly fall under the term ""Political Philosophy" or "Intellectual History" but would include historiographers and more. As with everything, how much labelling you want to do of an approach is more an ideological and academic preference than any real distinction.
What do you want call E.H Carr? Professionally he was a diplomat. Or Isaiah Berlin? He was a philosopher. Or Edward Said? He was a literary critic. Or any number of classicists who write works that extrapolate grander principles of history from the ancient (eg Robert Kagan, Walter Scheidel, and many, many more). All of these writers wrote works that might fall by some characterizations within that very broad but not very precisely defined categories that we might call "political philosophy" or "intellectual history" . Or we might not call it that, have some other preferred label that perhaps makes some useful distinction. your choice in labels in this regard is more about your preference than anything else.
If you want to be a bit more rigorous about you historiography, you might look at specific Hungarian writers you're thinking of, and look for others who cite them or the same sources. So, to take two who are termed eszmetörténész in Hungarian Istvan Bibo and Attila Karoly Molnar
. . . the subject matter of their works aren't anything terribly out of the ordinary in the Anglophone world. Just how it might be labeled is a matter of the specific subjects addressed and taste as much as anything else. Its notable that Hungarian academics seem to prefer the term English term "political philosophy" when writing in English about what is described in Hungarian as eszmetörténész
See:
Berki, R.N. “THE REALISM OF MORALISM: THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ISTVAN BIBO.” History of Political Thought, vol. 13, no. 3, 1992, pp. 513–534.
Kovács, Gábor. “Can Power Be Humanized? The Notions of Elite and Legitimation in István Bibó's Political Philosophy.” Studies in East European Thought, vol. 51, no. 4, 1999, pp. 307–327.