get_poll_resultsRead the current standings of a Whichli poll: the winner, the votes per option and how many people voted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poll | Yes | Poll id (e.g. 'k7m2q9xr4t') or a whichli.com/p/... URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds value by specifying the return content (winner, votes per option, voter count), which clarifies what the agent will receive beyond the simple read operation.
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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately lists the outputs, making it concise and well-structured.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers functionality and return expectations. It does not mention output structure, but no output schema exists and the description conveys the key information an agent needs to invoke 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?
The schema already fully documents the 'poll' parameter, including its format (id or URL) and that it is required. The description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and explicitly names the resource ('Whichli poll') plus the exact outputs (winner, votes per option, voter count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_photo_poll and get_poll, which have different purposes.
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 implies the tool is for viewing current poll standings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over get_poll or provide exclusions. The read-only context is clear from the verb and annotations, but no direct usage guidance is given.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: creating a poll, reading poll metadata, and reading vote results. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_photo_poll, get_poll, get_poll_results. Predictable and clearly derived from actions.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused photo poll server. Each tool covers a fundamental step in the poll lifecycle without unnecessary bloat.
The core create-read-results flow is covered, but tools for updating or deleting polls are missing. The adminUrl hints at management capabilities that aren't exposed, leaving notable gaps.