get_past_votesAccess historical weekly meal ballots to see every candidate’s vote count, voters, and selection status. Use this information to analyze past household choices and voting patterns.
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.
v0.1.0Does 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 context about the response contents but not ordering, pagination, week boundaries, or behavioral edge cases. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive behavioral detail.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource and is free of filler. It is efficient, though it could have included parameter semantics without becoming bloated.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits the meaning of limit_weeks and any usage context, so an agent still has to infer important details about how far back the ballots go.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented limit_weeks parameter. It does not mention limit_weeks or how the number of historical weeks is controlled, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the parameter name.
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?
The description identifies a specific resource ('historical ballots') and details the returned contents for each week: candidate, vote count, voters, and selected status. It is clear and directionally differentiates from current-week tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or use a direct verb.
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?
The word 'Historical' implies this tool is for past ballots rather than current voting, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_current_week or reopen_voting, and it does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.