Find Celestia code snippets in forum posts on a topic. Filters forum_posts where the rendered HTML contains <pre> or <code> blocks AND matches the topic keyword. Celestia-specific.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 5). | |
| topic | Yes | Topic keyword. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals the underlying filter logic, including the requirement for rendered HTML to contain `<pre>` or `<code>` blocks and match the topic keyword. It does not describe output ordering or exact returned fields, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful and not misleading.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the precise filtering behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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 three-parameter tool, the description gives enough context about what is searched and how results are constrained. It does not detail the return shape, but there is no output schema and the expected output can be reasonably inferred as matching forum posts containing snippets.
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 baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that `topic` is a keyword, which the schema already states; no additional parameter semantics are provided. This is acceptable because the schema fully documents each parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('Celestia code snippets in forum posts') and adds a concrete matching criterion. It is easy to distinguish from generic siblings like search or semantic_search because it targets code-bearing forum content.
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 intended use case is clear: retrieve forum posts that contain code blocks and match a topic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity ('Celestia-specific' plus HTML filter) provides enough context for selection among siblings.
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 target clearly distinct content types and actions, and descriptions carefully carve out boundaries (e.g. get_network_state vs get_network_stats, get_discussion vs get_github_discussion). However, the overlapping get_/find_/search_ families plus the very similar network_state/network_stats names leave some edge cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.
The dominant convention is verb_noun (find_*, get_*, list_*, search_*), and get/list/find roughly map to id-based retrieval, browsing, and discovery. Deviations like learning_path, ecosystem_dependency_graph, and semantic_search break the pattern, and the get_ vs find_ vs search_ boundaries are not perfectly predictable.
43 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server; even though the Celestia knowledge domain is broad, the surface is heavy and will increase selection cost. Most tools are individually useful, but the set would benefit from consolidation, e.g. merging release tools or search variants.
The server covers an unusually broad range of content types—CIPs, docs, forum, GitHub issues/discussions, releases, videos, whitepapers, ecosystem, and network state—with list/get/search access for most. Minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated blog retrieval and get_issue_status only returning status rather than full issue body, but core knowledge workflows have no dead ends.