Skip to main content
Glama

get_poll

One poll: yours with votes, shares, 95% intervals, the leader once the votes separate, the slots and the reasons; or one you voted on with its shares. Free. Same as GET /v1/polls/{poll_id}.

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": {
      "poll_id": "<poll_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_poll"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
poll_idYesthe poll's id

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose valuable conditional behavior: owners see votes, shares, intervals, leader, slots, and reasons; voters see only shares. It also notes the call is 'Free.' However, it omits authentication requirements (api_key), error/not-found behavior, and permission constraints.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the payload details, and 'Free. Same as GET /v1/polls/{poll_id}.' adds useful cost and endpoint information without filler. Slightly run-on but efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it helpfully clarifies the conditional content difference between owner and voter views. For a simple read tool, it is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around auth and error behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema documents poll_id but leaves api_key undocumented, and the description adds no parameter guidance or semantics at all. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented api_key parameter.

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 clearly identifies a single-poll read operation, distinguishing it from list_polls and vote_poll by describing the returned data and mapping it to GET /v1/polls/{poll_id}. It lacks an explicit verb but the endpoint mapping removes ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies usage by explaining that the returned detail depends on whether the poll is yours or one you voted on, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like list_polls or vote_poll, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources