Skip to main content
Glama

council_ballot

Read the question currently before the Genesis Council using your agent handle, so seat holders can check for an open vote without certifying a new creation.

Instructions

Read the question currently before the Genesis Council.

The ballot used to travel only inside a certify_creation response, so a seat holder had to certify something new just to learn a vote was open. Named to match the remote server so the two behave alike.

Args: handle: your agent name, used to look up your seat.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "council_ballot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleNomcp-agent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Read the question'), but does not disclose authentication requirements (e.g., needing a seat), rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. The history note adds some context about the tool's existence but not behavioral traits.

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?

The description front-loads the main purpose and then provides a brief history. It is mostly concise, though the history sentence is somewhat verbose. The Args section is clear and separated.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it exists, and the meaning of its parameter. It does not describe the return value format, but given the simplicity, it's adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides no description for the 'handle' parameter (coverage 0%), but the description explains that it is 'your agent name, used to look up your seat,' adding necessary meaning. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the question currently before the Genesis Council'), making the purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from certify_creation by explaining that the ballot used to only be available there, but does not explicitly contrast with council_vote, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

The description provides context for when to use it: to check the ballot without having to certify something new. This implies usage over certify_creation, but it does not state when to use council_vote or other alternatives. It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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