Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
interactive-choice-mcp

interactive-choice-mcp

by Sighthesia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

poll_selection

Checks for user's choice in an ongoing interactive session that moved from terminal to web interface.

Instructions

Polls for the result of an ongoing interaction session that was switched from Terminal to Web.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "poll_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states 'polls' but does not clarify if it is blocking, how often to call, timeout behavior, or what happens if the session is invalid. No side effects or required permissions are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information. Efficiency is undercut by lack of substance, so a middle score is appropriate.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the single parameter, presence of an output schema (content unknown), and a sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the polling mechanism, expected output, or relationship to 'provide_choice'. Major gaps remain for effective agent use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'session_id' parameter beyond its name. The agent gets no context on how to obtain or format this ID, reducing the tool's usability.

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 specifies the action (polls), the object (result of an interaction session), and a context clue (switched from Terminal to Web). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'provide_choice' by focusing on polling rather than providing input. However, it is vague about what 'result' means.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'provide_choice' or any other alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for polling, or how the session was initiated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools