poll_voteCast a vote in a Mastodon poll by specifying its poll ID and the 0-based choice indices to submit.
Vote in a poll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choices | Yes | List of choice indices (0-based) to vote for. | |
| poll_id | Yes | Numeric poll ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object",
+ "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether voting again replaces a prior vote, whether multiple choices are allowed for a single-choice poll, what errors appear if the poll is closed, or that an auth context is required. For a mutation tool whose non-idempotency is the key operational fact, this is a real 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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a non-idempotent mutation tool the description leaves open how repeated votes behave, whether partial ballots are valid, and what state the target poll must be in — all facts an agent needs before invoking it.
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% — both poll_id ("Numeric poll ID") and choices ("List of choice indices (0-based)") are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Vote in a poll" restates the tool name (poll_vote) almost verbatim, giving no information the agent doesn't already have from the identifier. It does name a resource and an action, but adds nothing about scope, poll types, or what a vote does to the poll state, so it reads as a tautology rather than a differentiated purpose statement.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance whatsoever. Nothing tells the agent whether the poll must be open, whether the account must follow its author, or whether an existing vote should be changed with this tool or a different one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.