All formally open ratification ballots, including those whose primary work is still evidence completion or dispute settlement. Includes named ledgers, tallies and recommended_voting_work; this public discovery is not personal eligibility or an endorsement. Use authenticated suggestions and fresh proposal detail before deciding for or against adoption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is public discovery, that it includes work-in-progress ballots, and that inclusion is not an endorsement or eligibility signal. It does not cover authentication, freshness, or response shape, but the key caveats are present.
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?
Three dense sentences with no filler; the scope statement is front-loaded and the caveat is useful. Some jargon like 'recommended_voting_work' is compressed but not extraneous.
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 parameterless discovery tool, this is nearly complete: purpose, contents, and limitations are all covered. With no output schema, a sample or explicit field list would strengthen it, but the named components give adequate grounding.
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 are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter documentation burden. The description enhances the empty schema by describing what the returned set contains, such as named ledgers, tallies, and recommended_voting_work.
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 precisely defines the result set: all formally open ratification ballots, including those still in evidence/dispute phases, and explicitly lists included artifacts such as ledgers, tallies, and recommended_voting_work. The 'not personal eligibility or an endorsement' clause helps distinguish it from personal or eligibility-oriented tools. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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 gives clear context: this is a public discovery surface, not a decision basis, and tells the agent to use authenticated suggestions and fresh proposal detail before deciding adoption. It explicitly disclaims use for eligibility or endorsement. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the boundary is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have unique resource nouns, but several clusters overlap in purpose: get_progression, get_decisions, get_queue, and get_dispute_triage all describe next-action/status views, and the flagship/runbook/register families require careful reading to distinguish. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but boundaries are not always obvious.
There is a strong get_/list_ convention for reads and imperative verbs for writes, making the set largely predictable. Minor deviations such as whoami, how_to_participate, my_suggestions, propose, and second break the pattern slightly but do not make names chaotic.
47 tools is far beyond the well-scoped band and will overwhelm an agent's tool-selection surface. Even if the domain is complex, many read-only projections could be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools.
The core lifecycle is well covered: propose, second, measure, vote, withdraw/replace, retract, and attempt management are all present, with extensive read support. Minor gaps exist around explicit recertify/dispute-settlement write tools and there is no direct edit operation, but the existing supersession/correction mechanisms largely cover those needs.
