vote.direct

Add voters to a draft election

add_voters

Idempotent

Add eligible voters (email, optional name and unit) to a DRAFT election in the connected account, through the import the voter list page uses. Idempotent: people already on the list are skipped, a voter listed twice is added once, and rows that cannot be added are named by row number. Returns counts, never the rows, and the updated price. For a published election, voters are added by the organizer on the election page, because a larger list can change the price.

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": {
      "election": "<election>",
      "voters": "<voters>"
    },
    "name": "add_voters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`voters`	Yes	The eligible voters (the roster), one per owner/member. Email addresses only; people reached by text or mail are added by the organizer on the election page.
`election`	Yes	The draft's id or slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / voters / maxItems
```
Previous value: -2000New value: +5000
```
AddedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out idempotency mechanics (existing people skipped, duplicate rows collapsed to one, failed rows named by row number), the return contract ('counts, never the rows, and the updated price'), and the side effect on pricing. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then behavior, then the alternative path. No filler and every clause carries operational information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return shape (counts plus updated price, no rows) and the error-reporting convention, and it flags the draft-only precondition and the 5000-item cap context. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the nested voter fields are already documented, and the email-only constraint is repeated from the schema's voters description rather than added. The description adds marginal framing ('one per owner/member') but no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Add eligible voters ... to a DRAFT election'), names the fields accepted, and scopes it to drafts. An agent can distinguish this from remove_voters and from the published-election path without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the when ('a DRAFT election') and the when-not ('For a published election, voters are added by the organizer on the election page'), plus the reason (a larger list can change the price). This is nearly complete routing guidance even though it points to the UI rather than a sibling tool.

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

All vote.direct tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?