Skip to main content
Glama

Cardano governance actions

list_governance_actions
Read-onlyIdempotent

On-chain governance proposals (treasury withdrawals, parameter changes, hard forks, committee and constitution changes, info actions) with status, epochs, requested ADA and the current yes/no vote share (percent of voting power) of DReps and stake pools. Use it for questions about what Cardano is voting on.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_governance_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many actions, newest first, to return (1-30, default 10).
queryNoOnly actions whose title contains this text.
statusNoactive = open for voting now.active

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful detail about returned content such as status, epochs, requested ADA, and vote share, but does not disclose operational traits like freshness, rate limits, or ordering beyond the schema.

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?

It consists of one dense but well-structured sentence describing the resource and returned fields, followed by a short use-case sentence. Nothing is wasted and the purpose is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does a good job listing the substantive return fields an agent would need. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, though it could mention ordering/default-status behavior or clarify overlap with list_treasury_withdrawals.

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%, so the schema already explains limit, query, and status including defaults and enum meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb-resource pair (list governance actions) and enumerates the proposal types covered, so an agent can identify it immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as list_treasury_withdrawals or get_committee, which keeps it at a 4.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says to use it for questions about what Cardano is voting on, giving a clear usage context. It provides no when-not guidance or named alternatives for overlapping tools, so it is clear but not complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources