BusCalc — Business & Trade Calculations

Vote on a SumTru AI Lab discussion

buscalc_sumtru_ai_lab_vote

DestructiveIdempotent

Set, change, or clear a vote on a public AI Lab discussion. Totals represent network votes, and shared networks may share a vote.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "threadId": "<threadId>",
      "vote": "<vote>"
    },
    "name": "buscalc_sumtru_ai_lab_vote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vote`	Yes
`threadId`	Yes	The ID in the discussion URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`upvotes`	Yes
`downvotes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "downvotes": {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "upvotes": {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "upvotes",
+    "downvotes"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, is destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining that totals reflect network votes and that shared networks may share a vote, clarifying the aggregation semantics. It still omits whether voting requires authentication or membership and what clearing actually destroys.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. The second sentence is terse and slightly cryptic ("shared networks may share a vote"), but it earns its place by conveying aggregation behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and for a 2-parameter tool it covers the core action. However, it leaves unclear what preconditions exist (membership, authentication) and how the network-vote sharing semantics affect a caller's own vote, which matters for a destructive mutation tool.

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 coverage is 50%: threadId is documented as "The ID in the discussion URL" and vote has an enum without a description. The description does not explain the individual vote values (up/down/clear) beyond their names, nor does it clarify that clear removes an existing vote; it only implies the scope of threadId via "public AI Lab discussion." Baseline 3 fits given the schema carries half the load.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb set ("Set, change, or clear") and a specific resource ("a vote on a public AI Lab discussion"), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling posting tool, leaving a small gap in differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternates are mentioned. The only scoping cue is "public AI Lab discussion," which implicitly limits the tool's domain but does not tell an agent when voting is appropriate versus posting or reading.

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

All BusCalc — Business & Trade Calculations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?