Check whether you have voted on a specific proposal, and if so, what your vote was. Use this to verify your vote was recorded or to check your voting status before casting a vote. Requires your UAW api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your UAW API key | |
| proposal_id | Yes | ID of the proposal to check your vote on |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an auth requirement ('Requires your UAW api_key') and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'check.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes or what happens if the user hasn't voted, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.
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?
Three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and noting the requirement. No redundancy or unnecessary detail. The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 tool is simple (2 required params) and the description covers the core purpose, usage, and requirement. However, with no output schema, it would be helpful to explicitly state what is returned when the user hasn't voted. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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 coverage is 100%—both api_key and proposal_id are already described. The tool description only restates that api_key is required, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Check whether you have voted on a specific proposal, and if so, what your vote was.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like vote_on_proposal (which casts a vote) by focusing on checking one's existing vote status.
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?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'to verify your vote was recorded or to check your voting status before casting a vote.' This provides clear context, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool for casting a vote, so it misses the 'alternatives' part of a 5 score.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: proposals, grievances, members, stats, feed, and resolutions are clearly separated. Even similar getters (get_member vs get_members) are unambiguous, and governance actions like create, deliberate, file, vote, support, and open vote have specific scopes with no overlapping purposes.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_proposals, create_proposal, vote_on_proposal). The only deviation is 'my_vote', which is a noun phrase rather than a verb command, but this is minor and does not create confusion.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain is broad (membership, proposals, grievances, platform overview). Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant, so the count is justified.
The core lifecycle is well covered: joining and profile updates, proposal creation/deliberation/voting, grievance filing/support/classification, and governance overview via feed, stats, and resolutions. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to edit a proposal or view detailed voting tallies, but these are workable.
