Find where a given Celestia Improvement Proposal (CIP) is referenced across blobpedia: forum threads, blog posts, celestiaorg GitHub issues and pull requests, and sibling CIPs. Celestia-specific cross-reference — use to see who is discussing a CIP and where. Needs a CIP id (from search or list_cips).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | CIP ID: "0001", "CIP-0042", or "PR-0117" |
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 provided, so description carries full burden. States what it does and required input, but does not disclose traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when no mentions exist. Acceptable for a simple lookup tool.
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: first lists sources, second adds context and prerequisite. Efficient with minimal redundancy, though the first sentence is slightly long.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, description adequately explains purpose, input, and sources. No mention of return format, but that is expected given no output schema.
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 has 100% coverage describing the 'id' parameter format. Description adds value by explaining where to obtain the id (from search or list_cips) and referencing it in context.
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?
Specifies exact verb 'find' and resource 'references' across multiple sources. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_cip (retrieve specific CIP) and get_discussion (retrieve a specific discussion).
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?
Explicitly states 'Celestia-specific cross-reference — use to see who is discussing a CIP and where.' Mentions prerequisite (CIP id from search or list_cips). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling list provides context.
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.