Zovo Group Vote

Close or reopen group vote

close_group_vote

Idempotent

Use this when the organizer wants to stop voting (or open it again) on a vote made with create_group_vote. Takes the private organizer link. Closing shows the final result on the public page, also when totals were hidden. Set reopen true to accept votes again. Does not delete votes.

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": {
      "manage_url": "<manage_url>"
    },
    "name": "close_group_vote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reopen`	No	false or omitted = close the vote; true = open it again. Example: false.
`manage_url`	Yes	The private organizer link of the vote, e.g. https://group-vote.zovo.one/m/AbC123.../XyZ789... (contains /m/).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`tied`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`closed`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`rounds`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`voters`	Yes
`winner`	Yes
`question`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes
`manage_url`	Yes
`public_url`	Yes
`decided_by_tiebreak`	Yes
`hide_results_until_closed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious effects the annotations cannot express: closing publishes the final result on the public page even when totals were hidden, and existing votes are preserved. It does not cover failure modes such as an already-closed vote or an invalid organizer link, which keeps it below 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each remaining sentence carries a distinct fact: prerequisite input, public-page side effect, reopen behavior, and non-destructiveness. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, the state change's visibility, and the non-deletion guarantee for a low-parameter mutation. The main remaining gap is behavior on edge inputs (already closed, expired, or malformed link).

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the /m/ link format and the reopen default. The description restates the reopen semantics ('Set reopen true to accept votes again') and characterizes manage_url as the private organizer link, which adds a small amount of emphasis but no new syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action pair (close/reopen) on a specific resource (a group vote created via create_group_vote), so an agent can distinguish it from create_group_vote and show_vote_results without opening a schema. The parenthetical '(or open it again)' correctly reflects the title's dual mode.

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 gives a clear trigger ('when the organizer wants to stop voting') and names the sibling tool that produces the object being operated on. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., use show_vote_results to read results without closing), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All Zovo Group Vote tools Inspect

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

Need Help?