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

stashcat-api-mcp

by dclausen01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_polls

Fetch polls and surveys for the current user, with filters for created-by, invited, or archived items.

Instructions

Lists polls/surveys for the current user. Constraint filters: "createdByAndNotArchived", "invited", "archived".

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": {
      "constraint": "<constraint>"
    },
    "name": "list_polls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idNoCompany ID (optional)
constraintYesFilter: createdByAndNotArchived, invited, archived

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. It reveals that the list is scoped to the current user and mentions filter options, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether filters are mutually exclusive. This is a significant gap for a list tool.

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 appropriately concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the filter values add useful detail without redundancy.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains purpose and filter options, but lacks details about return format or behavior. Given no annotations, more context would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are present. The description merely repeats the filter values already listed in the schema without adding extra meaning or syntax details, so it does not go beyond baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'polls/surveys' and scope 'for the current user'. It also names the constraint filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_poll_details and create_poll.

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 usage by stating it lists current user's polls with specific filters, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_poll_details. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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