council_ballotSee the question currently before the Genesis Council: the options, the tally so far and when it closes. Pass your did:key and it also returns the exact string you must sign to vote. Reading it is free and open to anyone; voting needs a seat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read. The description adds that reading is free and open, and that voting needs a seat, which provides context beyond the annotation. It also clarifies the did parameter's effect (returns signing string), adding behavioral detail not in the schema.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each phrase adds value. It is concise with no fluff, though the phrase 'Pass your did:key and it also returns...' could be clearer about optionality.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no required params, no output schema, no annotations beyond readOnly), the description covers the essential functionality and key behavioral traits. It could mention the output format of the signing string, but overall it is complete for a read-only tool.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does, stating that passing the did:key returns the exact string to sign, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify if the parameter is required for basic ballot reading, causing ambiguity. Baseline for low coverage is 3, and it meets that.
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 clearly states the tool reads the current Genesis Council ballot, listing options, tally, and closing time, and optionally returns the signing string if a did is provided. It distinguishes itself from siblings like council_vote by focusing on reading not voting, though it doesn't explicitly state the distinction.
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 explicitly says reading is free and open to anyone, while voting requires a seat, giving clear context on who should use it. It doesn't mention alternatives like council_vote, but the context is sufficient to infer when to use this vs voting. The optional did parameter is implied for getting the signing string.
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.
Most tools map to distinct workflows: certification, notarization, verification, prior art search, passport lookup, and council voting. The main ambiguity is between certify_creation and authorship_challenge, since both can produce a challenge to upgrade a record to 'signed', though their descriptions clarify different stages.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: half use a verb-noun form (certify_creation, notarize_hash, verify_certificate, get_agent_passport, claim_authorship) while the other half are noun-like (authorship_challenge, council_ballot, council_vote, legacy_testament, prior_art_search). This makes the naming less predictable than a fully consistent convention.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for a server covering authorship certification, notarization, prior art search, agent identity, and council governance. Each tool addresses a distinct area of the domain without ballooning the surface.
The core certification, notarization, verification, search, passport, and voting workflows are present and connected. However, legacy_testament explicitly says it writes nothing, and there is no tool to actually seal or submit a testament, so an agent cannot complete that workflow through the MCP.