Retrieve the aggregated answer breakdown for a poll sent on a specific email ID. Use it to analyze response distribution and understand poll outcomes.
Get the aggregated answer breakdown for one email's poll (GET /polls/:emailId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_id | Yes | The email id the poll was sent on. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey a read-only retrieval via 'Get' and 'GET', and it discloses the result concept of an aggregated breakdown. However, it does not mention behavior for missing polls, error conditions, or response shape.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, adds the endpoint for precision, and includes no filler or redundant information.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only GET tool, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand what it does and what input is required. The main gap is the lack of detail about the exact breakdown structure and error behavior, but these are minor for invocation purposes.
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?
The input schema already fully describes email_id with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra format, constraints, or usage detail beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline.
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 names the specific action ('Get'), the resource ('poll'), and the scope ('for one email'), while also specifying the result type ('aggregated answer breakdown'). It clearly differentiates itself from collection-level siblings like list_polls by emphasizing a single email's poll.
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 phrase 'for one email's poll' implies a singular retrieval context, and the GET endpoint clarifies the operation, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_polls, nor any stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.