get_poll_resultResults of Vouchernaut's reader polls (UK shoppers answering short questions in its guides): the question, each answer's votes and share, and the poll's page to cite. Shares are quotable ("one in three readers") only once a poll has 100 answers. Without poll, it lists the polls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poll | No | The poll's slug, from the list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the two operating modes, the numeric threshold before shares become quotable, and the concrete fields returned. It does not discuss rate limits or result sizing, which is the only notable gap.
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 definition is essentially two sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, followed by the quotability rule and the list-vs-detail fallback. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical on poll provenance is the only slightly expendable element.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so concretely (question, votes, share, citation page). It also covers the optional-parameter fallback and a data-quality caveat, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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 the schema already says the parameter is a slug drawn from the list. The description goes slightly beyond that by explaining the consequence of omitting `poll` entirely (falls back to listing polls), which tells the agent how to discover valid slugs. It adds no format or length guidance beyond the schema, but little is needed for one string.
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 names a specific resource (Vouchernaut reader polls) and states exactly what is returned: the question, each answer's votes and share, and a citable page. It also clarifies the dual-mode behavior, distinguishing the detail view from the list view, so an agent knows the tool's shape without opening the schema.
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?
It gives a clear usage rule for the optional parameter — omitting `poll` lists the polls, supplying it fetches one poll's results — and adds a quotability threshold (100 answers) that governs how the returned share may be used. No sibling alternatives are named, but none of the listed siblings overlap this resource, so there is little to exclude.
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.