Fetch Discord users who voted for a chosen poll answer by channel, message, and answer IDs.
Fetch users who voted for a specific answer in a poll
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answerId | Yes | Numeric answer option ID (typically 1, 2, 3...) | |
| channelId | Yes | Discord channel ID | |
| messageId | Yes | Poll message ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read, but the description says nothing about required bot permissions, whether the poll must be active or ended, or pagination/limits on voter lists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that it omits information an agent might need.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, and it only covers the purpose. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but nothing tells the agent about return shape, permissions, or edge cases; adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (answerId, channelId, messageId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and a precise resource (users who voted for a specific answer in a poll), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling poll tools like create_poll or end_poll, but the resource is distinct enough to identify on its own.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only usage signal is implied by the tool name itself; an agent must infer that this applies only to existing polls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.