Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stashcat-api-mcp

stashcat-api-mcp

by dclausen01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_poll_participants

Fetch the list of users who participated in a poll by supplying the poll ID.

Instructions

Lists users who have participated in (answered) a poll.

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": {
      "poll_id": "<poll_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_poll_participants"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
poll_idYesPoll ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Lists users' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any permissions needed, return format (e.g., user IDs vs full objects), pagination, or error behavior. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent guessing about important execution details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose but lacks information about what the returned participant list contains and any implicit behavioral context. It is adequate for a basic list operation but leaves some gaps around response shape and usage constraints.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'poll_id' described as 'Poll ID'. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Lists users') and the specific resource ('a poll'), adding parenthetical clarification that participation means 'answered'. This distinguishes it from sibling list_poll_invited_users, which lists users who were invited but may not have responded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for fetching poll respondents by the word 'participated', but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_poll_invited_users or get_poll_details. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the semantics are reasonably clear.

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