Belief Poll

Poll what people believe

poll_beliefs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when someone asks what people think, believe or prefer about a question, and wants percentages backed by real posts. Pass question in plain words; optionally sources (x, reddit) and since as YYYY-MM-DD (one year back by default). Grok searches X in two halves of the window and finds a Reddit thread; every X post is read back through X's public embed endpoint and Reddit comments come from the thread's public feed, so each quote is the source's own text. Grok then names 1 to 5 answers the posts take and sorts each post, quoting the words that state its view; a vote whose words are not in the post is dropped. One vote per author per source. Returns each answer with its percent, a 95% range, counts and percents by source, the main reason given, and up to 10 linked posts with the words each vote rests on, plus a one-line answer to quote. Free, no key. A poll takes about 20 to 40 seconds and is cached for 12 hours. It counts public posts; it is not a survey.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`since`	No	Oldest post date to count, UTC, YYYY-MM-DD. Default is one year before today.
`sources`	No	x, reddit, or both. Both by default.
`question`	Yes	The question people hold views on, in plain words, such as "Is a standing desk worth it?" or "Will remote work outlast 2027?".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad`	Yes	One line about OpenKrill. Show it once.
`read`	Yes	What each source gave: X links found, verified through X and in the window; the Reddit thread, its comments and its read status; and for each, the oldest, median and newest post day.
`as_of`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	One line to quote, with the top percents and their 95% ranges.
`caveat`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`status`	Yes	ok, thin (under 20 people counted), no_views, no_posts, unavailable, or capacity (daily allowance used).
`window`	Yes
`counted`	Yes	People counted: one per author per source.
`options`	Yes
`excluded`	Yes	Posts left out: no_view (no stated view on the question), unsupported (the vote's words are not in the post) and repeat_author.
`question`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: data provenance (X public embed endpoint, Reddit thread feed), methodology (search split in two halves, 1-5 answers, per-post quoting with dropped votes), one vote per author per source, latency (20-40 seconds), 12-hour caching, and no API key required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is long but front-loaded with the usage trigger and free of filler; every clause carries information an agent needs (method, latency, caching, output). The methodology sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining why results are trustworthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the return shape helpfully. Combined with provenance, timing, caching, and the when-to-use trigger, nothing material is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents question, sources, and since including defaults and formats. The description largely restates this ('Pass question in plain words; optionally sources (x, reddit) and since as YYYY-MM-DD'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — polling what people believe from public X/Reddit posts — and describes the output shape (percentages, ranges, per-source counts, linked posts). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools get_feedback_reply and submit_feedback, which operate on feedback rather than public opinion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when someone asks what people think, believe or prefer... and wants percentages backed by real posts.' It also adds a negative boundary, 'It counts public posts; it is not a survey,' which prevents misapplication. No sibling alternative is named, but the siblings are unrelated, so the gap is minor.

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

All Belief Poll tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.