Skip to main content
Glama

Submit the signed vote (step 2 of 2)

submit_vote

Complete the vote: pass workId, the BODY_JSON from prepare_vote UNCHANGED, and the signature your wallet produced over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. This server relays the signed request to the same public vote gate any HTTP client uses — it holds no keys and no funds, and without your signature it can do nothing. Free, always: no fee is ever charged for a validly signed vote. Returns the live tally for this packet. Cost and signer: free, no gas; signed by the person's own wallet or passkey, and the house never holds a key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workIdYesThe packet id.
bodyJsonYesThe exact BODY_JSON string from prepare_vote, unchanged.
signatureYesThe 0x… personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
toolNo
fundedNo
payUsdNo
workIdNo
claimIdNo
claimableNo
next_callNo
proofRuleNo
fulfillableByNo
definitionOfDoneNo
needs_from_callerNo
notClaimableReasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "claimId": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "definitionOfDone": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "object",
      +        "array",
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "fulfillableBy": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "funded": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "needs_from_caller": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "next_call": {
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "payUsd": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    },
      +    "proofRule": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "tool": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "workId": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the server only relays the signed request to a public vote gate, holds no keys or funds, charges no fee or gas, and requires the user's own wallet or passkey signature. These are meaningful trust, cost, and security traits not captured by readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The action and prerequisites are front-loaded, which is good. However, the no-fee, no-key, and self-custody points are repeated across multiple sentences, so the description is longer than necessary.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the necessary sequence, signing/security context, fee behavior, and a brief return summary. An agent has enough context to invoke 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces provenance and the 'UNCHANGED' constraint for bodyJson, but mostly repeats the schema rather than adding new syntax or format semantics.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Complete the vote' and 'step 2 of 2'. It explicitly references prepare_vote as the source of BODY_JSON, so an agent can distinguish this submission step from the preparation sibling.

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 establishes the required sequence: use the BODY_JSON from prepare_vote unchanged and supply the wallet signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It does not spell out when not to use this tool or name all alternative paths, but the prerequisite is unambiguous.

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