Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FeatureOS

by io.github.featureos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Vote

vote

Create an upvote or downvote on a post.

Pass on_behalf_email to upvote as that user (POST /votes_on_behalf). On-behalf votes are upvote-only. by_email is optional for OAuth.

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": {
      "feature_request_id": "<feature_request_id>",
      "vote_type": "<vote_type>"
    },
    "name": "vote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
by_emailNoEmail of the team member performing the on-behalf vote. Optional for OAuth (defaults to the token actor). Required for API-KEY + JWT callers and must match the JWT email. Ignored unless on_behalf_email is set.
vote_typeYesEither 'upvote' or 'downvote'. On-behalf votes only support 'upvote'.
allow_privateNoSet to True if the post belongs to a private board.
on_behalf_emailNoEmail of the user to upvote on behalf of. When set, POSTs /api/v3/votes_on_behalf instead of voting as the authenticated user. On-behalf is upvote-only.
feature_request_idYesThe ID of the post to vote on. Use list_feature_requests or search_feature_requests to find IDs.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only state that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description goes further by disclosing that on-behalf voting routes to a different endpoint (POST /votes_on_behalf), is upvote-only, and that by_email matters only for certain auth modes. It still leaves the side effects of repeat voting (error vs. overwrite) and any rate limits unstated.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the conditional on-behalf mode, with almost no filler. The final sentence ('by_email is optional for OAuth') mildly duplicates the schema description, but the overall text is efficiently sized.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the main branching behavior (standard vs. on-behalf voting). What is missing is idempotency/duplicate-vote behavior and how allow_private interacts with failures on private boards, both relevant for a mutation tool.

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 the parameters are already fully documented, including the upvote-only rule for on-behalf votes and the allow_private flag. The description largely restates those facts (on_behalf_email semantics, by_email optionality for OAuth) rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create an upvote or downvote on a post,' which is far clearer than the bare name 'vote.' It also flags the on-behalf variant, but it never names a sibling (e.g. list_upvoters or list_downvoters) to distinguish this write tool from the read-only sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the conditions for the on-behalf path ('Pass on_behalf_email to upvote as that user') and the upvote-only constraint, plus when by_email is optional. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor what to do about duplicate votes or a post already voted on.

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

All FeatureOS toolsInspect
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