Election Index

Check a question

check_question

Read-only

Is a question about a given count stage answerable at a given time? Returns verdict ok / too-early / inside-window / too-late, settle_after, and the resolvable sources. Built to stop questions that read the provisional count when they mean the final one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`race`	No	Race id, e.g. "president"; optional when the election has one race
`stage`	No	Default final-result
`ask_at`	No	ISO date-time; default now
`election`	Yes	Election id, e.g. "brazil-general-2026"; list ids with upcoming_elections

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes	What this answer was built from; cite dataset_version
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / resolution_sources / items / properties / figures_in_html

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For a results page: whether its own HTML shows a count (false: figures load by script or the page only links on; null: not read)",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / resolution_sources / items / properties / oracle_reads

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Settlement-oracle lab reads of this URL: right, wrong, unread, lab, at",
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / secondary_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Global Election Index's own page with the count we recorded: a secondary source when the authority's page cannot be read. Null until a count is recorded.",
+  "properties": {
+    "copied_from": {
+      "description": "The authority file or page the figures come from",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "final": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "publisher": {
+      "description": "Publisher",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "retrieved_at": {
+      "description": "When we read the count (ISO)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stage": {
+      "description": "Count stage of the figures shown",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Race results page",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the verdict taxonomy and mentions settle_after and resolvable sources, but since an output schema exists this is largely return-value information rather than deeper behavioral context (no auth, rate-limit, or ambiguity-handling notes).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core question and tightly followed by the return vocabulary. The third sentence is motivational rather than operational but still earns its place by framing the tool's intent.

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 needn't be spelled out, and the required-parameter surface is simple (one required election id). The description covers purpose and stage semantics adequately; only explicit alternative-tool routing is missing.

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% and each parameter is documented with examples and defaults in the schema itself. The description gestures at 'given count stage' and 'given time' but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening question states a concrete verb and resource ('Is a question about a given count stage answerable at a given time?') and enumerates the possible verdicts, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't name a sibling to contrast with (e.g. when_final or resolution_sources), so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Built to stop questions that read the provisional count when they mean the final one' gives a clear motivating scenario, which implies when to reach for this tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool for adjacent needs, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling list.

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

All Election Index 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?