Skip to main content
Glama

MORVS

by io.github.morvs-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find EAC Voting Systems

election_voting_systems
Read-onlyIdempotent

Filter the EAC's certified, under-test, Withdrawn or Decertified Systems, terminated and ESTEP e-poll-book rows by list, MORVS-curated vendor label, testing standard or proposed end-of-life notice flag. Defaults to the certified voting-system list. Returns EAC names, standards, dates and source links. A system named in the EAC's April 2026 notice remains on the certified list while the notice is proposed. Federal certification is voluntary; state law decides use. Never call a system insecure or outdated; use decertified only inside the EAC's own list name. Includes the EAC's exact security statement and the November 2024 EAVS survey label.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listNoEAC list: certified, under_test, withdrawn_or_decertified, terminated or epollbooks; defaults to certified.
limitNoMaximum system rows returned, allowed 1-100.
vendorNoOptional case-insensitive EAC manufacturer or MORVS vendor-label substring.
standardNoOptional testing standard as listed in the EAC data.
eol_noticeNoIf supplied, filter for systems named in the EAC April 2026 EOL notice; retirement remains proposed while still certified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / standard / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "VSS 2002",
-  "VVSG 1.0 (2005)",
-  "VVSG 1.1",
-  "VVSG 2.0",
-  "VEPBCR 1.0"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / standard / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Z][A-Za-z0-9 .()-]{1,39}$"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial domain context: default list behavior, how proposed EOL notices interact with certified status, legal caveats about federal versus state authority, and wording restrictions for decertified systems. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is appropriately sized for a tool with several domain-specific cautions. It is dense but mostly earns its space, though some legal and notice wording overlaps with schema or annotation context.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what is returned: EAC names, standards, dates, and source links. Combined with the default behavior, optional filters, and domain caveats, it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool 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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the list enum and eol_notice behavior. The description reinforces the default list and domain meaning of vendor/eol_notice, but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 description uses a specific verb, 'Filter', and a precise resource, the EAC's certified/under-test/withdrawn-or-decertified/terminated/e-poll-book systems, and it enumerates return fields. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools such as election_equipment_jurisdiction, so the sibling distinction is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It states the default list and gives important domain cautions, such as federal certification being voluntary and how to refer to systems named in the April 2026 notice. It does not, however, explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or name a sibling tool for a different voting-system query.

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

All MORVS 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