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

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

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	ISO 8601 time the data was published by its source or fetched from it. A cached answer keeps the time of its fetch.
`answer`	Yes	One line to quote, with the top percents and their 95% ranges.
`caveat`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`source`	Yes	Who the data comes from, to cite and to check it against.
`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.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / as_of / description

Added value: +"ISO 8601 time the data was published by its source or fetched from it. A cached answer keeps the time of its fetch."

addedOutput schema / properties / source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who the data comes from, to cite and to check it against.",
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "question",
-  "answer",
-  "options",
-  "counted",
-  "excluded",
-  "read",
-  "window",
-  "method",
-  "caveat",
-  "ad",
-  "as_of"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "question",
+  "answer",
+  "options",
+  "counted",
+  "excluded",
+  "read",
+  "window",
+  "method",
+  "caveat",
+  "ad",
+  "as_of",
+  "source"
+]

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), yet the description adds substantial operational detail: sourcing via X's public embed endpoint and Reddit's public feed, the vote-validation rule ('a vote whose words are not in the post is dropped'), one vote per author per source, 20-40s latency, 12-hour caching, and no API key. This is far beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then parameters, then method, then cost/latency/caching. It is long (roughly 180 words) but nearly every sentence carries new information about method or constraints; only the return-value sentence is partly redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

For a single-question polling tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly: trigger, parameters and defaults, cost (free, no key), latency, cache TTL, and the public-post limitation. Nothing material is left out.

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 all three parameters (question, sources, since) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description restates the same facts in prose ('question in plain words', 'sources (x, reddit)', 'since as YYYY-MM-DD... one year back by default') without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: it produces percentages of what people think/believe/prefer, backed by real public posts. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling feedback tools (get_feedback_reply, submit_feedback), and the closing 'It counts public posts; it is not a survey' sharpens the scope further.

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 states clearly when to reach for it ('when someone asks what people think, believe or prefer... and wants percentages backed by real posts') and rules out a misreading ('not a survey'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the siblings are unrelated feedback endpoints, so no routing conflict exists.

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.