add_voteRecord one member's votes for the current week (replaces their earlier votes). Accepts recipe_ids or ballot positions. Unknown member names are created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week_id | No | ||
| positions | No | Ballot numbers, 1-based | |
| recipe_ids | No | ||
| member_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important destructive behavior ('replaces their earlier votes') and the auto-creation of unknown members. However, it does not clarify what happens if both recipe_ids and positions are provided, nor whether week_id overrides or qualifies the 'current week' behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences. The core behavior and replacement semantics are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential call path: member_name plus either recipe_ids or positions, with a clear overwrite warning. But with no output schema and no annotations, the missing edge-case details—week_id semantics and behavior when both input types are supplied—leave some ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for member_name ('Unknown member names are created') and for the two vote input formats ('Accepts recipe_ids or ballot positions'). However, week_id is never explained, and the mutual exclusivity of recipe_ids and positions is only implied by 'or'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Record'), a clear resource ('one member's votes for the current week'), and a distinguishing behavior ('replaces their earlier votes'). It is easily differentiated from siblings like add_ballot_feedback and get_past_votes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly indicates when to use the tool (current-week votes) and warns that it overwrites prior votes. It also states that unknown member names are auto-created, removing the need for a separate membership check. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling performs the same vote-recording function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. The main confusable pair is run_agent_chef vs next_actions, which both return the due-action checklist and operating instructions, differing only by trigger context. propose_recipes vs add_candidates are also related but clearly separated by phase (initiating a cycle vs appending during feedback).
The overwhelming majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, update_, set_, add_, record_, remove_), which is highly predictable. Minor deviations include next_actions being a bare noun phrase rather than get_next_actions, and favorite_recipe using 'favorite' as a verb instead of something like toggle_favorite.
At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to select from, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The domain is genuinely broad, but several utility and meta tools (dismiss_setup_checklist, record_schedule, get_connected_agents, get_instructions) and overlapping entry points (run_agent_chef, next_actions) inflate the count and could be consolidated without losing capability.
The full weekly lifecycle is covered end-to-end: propose, vote, feedback, add candidates, lock in, shop, order, cook, rate, and mark done. Recipe, member, ingredient, and preference management all have solid get/update/create coverage. Minor gaps include no way to delete a recipe, remove a candidate from an active ballot, or cancel a week beyond reopen_voting, but these are work-aroundable and don't create dead ends.