Cast or remove your vote on a feedback item (one vote per tenant). Votes rank the board governance triages from — the community-voting primitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vote | No | true to upvote (default), false to remove your vote | |
| feedback_id | Yes | The fb_… id from feedback_submit / feedback_list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that votes are limited to one per tenant and that voting can be cast or removed. This complements the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotations without contradicting them.
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 brief but includes an awkward phrase 'from —' in the second sentence, which disrupts clarity. It is concise overall but not polished.
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?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and complete schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the core behavior and constraints (one vote per tenant, cast/remove). No output schema exists, but the description does not leave critical gaps for this use case.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptive text in the schema: feedback_id is sourced from feedback_submit/feedback_list, and vote specifies upvote or removal. The description does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 casts or removes a vote on a feedback item, and identifies it as the community-voting primitive, distinguishing it from sibling tools like feedback_submit and feedback_list.
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 provides clear context: it is used for voting on feedback items, with one vote per tenant, and positions itself as the voting primitive. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from sibling feedback tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'decision' and 'reason', both offering advisory output. Also, 'review', 'witness', 'prove', and 'verify_proof' overlap in the proofs space, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall, an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.
All tool names use lowercase and underscores (snake_case), which is consistent. However, the verbs vary: some are imperative (e.g., 'browse', 'execute'), while others are nouns (e.g., 'signals', 'ledger'), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
With 30 tools, the surface is too large for a well-scoped server. Many functions could be separated (e.g., memory, workspace, feedback, marketplace). This excess makes it harder for an agent to navigate and select the right tool quickly.
The tool set covers core CRUD for memory and workspace, plus feedback, marketplace purchase, bounties, and verification. However, there is no tool to list or search marketplace listings, and workspace creation is only implicit via 'execute'. These gaps hinder fluid workflows.
