Zovo Group Vote

Create group vote

create_group_vote

Use this when the user wants a group to vote or pick between options: a poll, a ranked-choice vote, approval voting, choosing a date, venue, book or name. Publishes a voting page that people open from a link in any browser, and returns a public link to share and a private organizer link. Methods: single (pick one), approval (pick any), ranked (instant runoff). 2 to 20 options, up to 300 voters. Not for secret ballots, formal elections, or anything that needs identity checks or fraud protection.

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": {
      "question": "<question>",
      "options": "<options>"
    },
    "name": "create_group_vote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional short note shown above the form, up to 300 characters, e.g. Vote by Friday 6 pm.
`method`	No	single = pick one (default); approval = tick every option you like; ranked = rank in order, counted by instant runoff. Example: ranked.
`options`	Yes	2 to 20 options in display order, each up to 80 characters, e.g. ["Thai", "Pizza", "Sushi"].
`question`	Yes	The question people vote on, up to 200 characters, e.g. Where should we have the team dinner?
`hide_results_until_closed`	No	true hides the totals from voters until the organizer closes the vote; default false (totals visible).

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world call. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the actual side effect ('Publishes a voting page that people open from a link in any browser') and the concrete return artifacts (a public share link and a private organizer link), plus operating limits of 2–20 options and up to 300 voters. Those are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before committing to a mutation, and none of them are contradicted by the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: trigger and use cases first, then what the tool produces and its limits, then exclusions. Every clause carries distinct information — no filler, no restating of the title — and the most decision-relevant content (what it does, when not to use it) is front-loaded.

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 create-style mutation with five parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything the agent still needs: the trigger, the voting methods, capacity limits, the two returned links, and the cases to route elsewhere. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema rather than duplicated.

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 coverage is 100%, so question, options, note, method, and hide_results_until_closed are all already documented with examples and enum meanings. The description mostly restates the method names, but it does add one fact absent from the schema: a ceiling of up to 300 voters. That is a marginal gain over a schema that already carries the heavy lifting, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create group vote') and then enumerates the concrete artifacts it produces: 'a poll, a ranked-choice vote, approval voting, choosing a date, venue, book or name.' That enumeration plus the naming of the voting methods makes it unmistakable against siblings close_group_vote and show_vote_results, which are about finishing and reading a vote rather than creating one.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants a group to vote or pick between options') and closes with explicit exclusions ('Not for secret ballots, formal elections, or anything that needs identity checks or fraud protection'). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both present, so the agent does not have to infer fit from the schema.

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?