get_past_votesRetrieve past weekly dinner votes showing each candidate's vote count, voters, and selection status. Use to review meal voting outcomes.
Historical ballots: per week, every candidate with vote count, voters, and whether it was selected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit_weeks | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / week / properties / share_urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public page showing this week's winners",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful shape information about the returned data (per-week grouping, voters, selection outcome), but says nothing about defaults, ordering, or truncation behavior.
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 the payload contents front-loaded after the colon. Efficient, though the fragmentary 'per week' phrasing is slightly telegraphic.
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 the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it does well to preview them. However, the sole input parameter is unexplained, leaving a real gap for a tool whose behavior is windowed by limit_weeks.
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?
There is one parameter (limit_weeks) with 0% schema description coverage and no default documented in the schema text; the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether it caps returned weeks, is required, or how the default of 12 interacts with the result set.
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 resource (historical ballots) and enumerates what each record contains (candidate, vote count, voters, selected flag). Clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_current_week or add_vote.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative (get_current_week for the live ballot). The word 'past' implies historical retrieval, but the agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart to add_vote rather than a current-week tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.