Skip to main content
Glama

Get proposal votes

get_proposal_votes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read live votes for a Star Atlas galaxy proposal to see vote count and voting power per choice, plus top voters by voting power. No ranked-choice winner is inferred.

Instructions

Live read of galaxy /proposals/votes/{id}.json. Summarizes count and voting power per choice. Does not invent a ranked-choice winner. Read-only.

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": "get_proposal_votes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNNoHow many voters to list, by voting power. Default 0.
pipNumberNo
proposalIdNoGalaxy proposal UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: 'Live read' signals uncached/fresh data, and 'Does not invent a ranked-choice winner' warns the agent not to infer a winner from the per-choice totals — an important interpretation constraint.

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 resource and endpoint, then the return summary, then the caveat. No filler, though the endpoint path is arguably redundant with the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, so the description needn't say much. However, with zero required parameters and an undocumented pipNumber, the description should clarify which identifier is needed and what happens if none is supplied.

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 coverage is 67%, with topN and proposalId documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is roughly 3. The description adds nothing about parameters and actually leaves the '{id}' ambiguous — it is unclear whether proposalId or pipNumber (undocumented in the schema) is required, and required parameters are listed as zero.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live read of galaxy /proposals/votes/{id}.json') plus what it returns ('Summarizes count and voting power per choice'). It implicitly differs from list_proposals by being a per-proposal vote read, but never names a sibling to contrast with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named (e.g., list_proposals for finding a proposal first). Only the word 'Live' hints that you use this for fresh vote tallies rather than cached data.

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