Fetch votes for a proposal to see who voted, how they voted, and when. Ideal for auditing DAO governance outcomes or tracking participation.
List votes for a specific proposal. Returns voter IDs, vote direction, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| proposalId | Yes | Proposal ID (dashless hex) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful return-content context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, ordering, or any rate-limit considerations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination or that it returns all votes for the proposal, but the schema already documents pagination parameters.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only alludes to proposalId via 'specific proposal' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the full schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.
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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('votes for a specific proposal'), and it further specifies the returned data fields (voter IDs, vote direction, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proposal or vote_on_proposal.
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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need votes for a specific proposal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing proposal metadata or casting a vote.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.