R3

Upvote a roadmap item

r3_roadmap_upvote

Idempotent

Add the user's vote to a public roadmap item (its id from r3_roadmap_list), when the user wants it or it covers what you were about to suggest. One vote per user: an item the user already voted for stays voted, and this never removes a vote. Needs the roadmap:vote right.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The roadmap item id, from r3_roadmap_list.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`voted`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`voteCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / answer

Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "voteCount",
-  "voted"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "voteCount",
+  "voted",
+  "answer"
+]

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the authorization requirement ('Needs the roadmap:vote right') and the precise vote semantics ('One vote per user', already-voted stays voted, never removes a vote). The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the auth and duplicate-vote behavior are real added value.

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, front-loaded with the action, then usage condition, then behavioral constraints. Every clause carries information (routing, idempotency, auth) with no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: id source, usage condition, permission requirement, and vote-count semantics. Nothing material 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 the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description only restates that the id comes from r3_roadmap_list, which the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('add the user's vote') and resource ('a public roadmap item'), scoped to public roadmap items and pointing at r3_roadmap_list as the id source. An agent can distinguish this from r3_roadmap_suggest (which creates items) and r3_roadmap_list without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions: 'when the user wants it or it covers what you were about to suggest' — the latter implicitly routes the agent away from r3_roadmap_suggest when the item already exists. However, it never states a when-not case or names the alternative sibling explicitly.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?