Skip to main content
Glama

Change a draft election

update_election_draft

Change a DRAFT election in the connected account: title, description, organization name, schedule and time zone, secret ballot, results visibility, quorum, and the ballot (add, remove or change questions, or replace them all). While nobody has paid for it, its state, community type, vote type and verification can change too. Fields mean what they mean in create_election_draft. Changes go through the election editor, so anything the election page would refuse is refused with its reason and nothing is half-changed where that can be checked first. Returns one plain sentence per change, written from the saved election, and what still blocks publishing. A published election is changed by the organizer on its page.

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>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "update_election_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYesOnly the fields to change; every field means what it means in create_election_draft. At least one field.
electionYesThe draft's id or slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / closes_at / description
      Previous value: -"When voting closes, ISO 8601 with offset, e.g. 2026-11-12T17:00:00-07:00. Must be in the future."New value: +"When voting closes, ISO 8601 with offset, e.g. 2026-11-12T17:00:00-07:00. Must be in the future. Leave it out when nobody said: voting then closes at 5pm in `timezone` seven days from today, and the result says the exact time so it can be relayed and changed."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only covering the generic read/write/destructive flags, the description adds substantial behavior: changes are validated by the election editor, rejections carry a reason, writes are effectively all-or-nothing where checkable, and untouchable state is gated on payment status. It also discloses the return shape (one plain sentence per change plus remaining publishing blockers), which no annotation conveys.

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?

The mutation scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral caveats follow logically. It is dense and the long enumeration of editable fields partially duplicates the schema, but every sentence carries operative information and none is filler.

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?

For a nested-patch mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the preconditions (draft, unpaid), validation/atomicity behavior, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics on top: the patch is diff-only ('only the fields to change'), field meanings are anchored to create_election_draft, and the ballot ordering (set replaces all, otherwise remove/update/add in order) is called out. This exceeds pure schema restatement even if the per-field prose largely mirrors the schema.

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 (change) on a specific resource (a DRAFT election) and enumerates exactly which attributes are editable, down to the ballot sub-operations. It also distinguishes itself from create_election_draft (fields carry the same meaning) and from the published-election flow, so an agent can separate it from siblings 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly scopes use to draft elections and notes that a published election is edited by the organizer on its page, which is an explicit when-not. It also flags the conditional window ('while nobody has paid for it' some fields remain mutable), giving real eligibility context, though it never names a sibling tool directly as the alternative.

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