Poll archive (federal and state), filter by date range and parliament, up to 500 per call.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "search_poll_archive"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| parliament | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — result caps ('up to 500 per call') — which the schema does not state and which conflicts mildly with the limit default of 100. It does not disclose ordering, whether results are paged, or whether 'archive' excludes recent polls.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters leave real gaps: date format, what a poll record looks like, whether the limit is hard-capped at 500, and how this differs from get_latest_polls. The description does not close them.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names two of four parameters (date range, parliament) but gives no date format or expected values, and never mentions 'limit' at all despite naming the 500 cap.
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?
States a specific resource (poll archive) with explicit scope (federal and state) and the filterable dimensions. An agent can roughly distinguish it from get_latest_polls by the word 'archive', but the differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.
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 filtering by date range and parliament but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_latest_polls or get_track_record. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no routing guidance for a catalog with several poll-related siblings.
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.