Counts of CELESTIA CONTENT indexed by blobpedia (how many CIPs, forum threads, docs, videos, etc.). This is INDEX/catalog coverage of what blobpedia has cataloged, NOT live chain state. For LIVE on-chain metrics (block height, TIA supply, validators, cumulative blob data) or TIA price/market, use get_network_state on THIS server instead. Zero arguments.
| 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?
Discloses that data is index/catalog coverage, not live chain state, which is critical for correct interpretation. With no annotations, description carries full burden and does well, though it could mention potential error scenarios or return format.
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?
Description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, then adds distinction and alternative usage. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and what it does not, including a pointer to the sibling tool for related functionality. No gaps.
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?
Zero parameters; description confirms 'Zero arguments.' Schema coverage is 100%, so no additional param details needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns counts of Celestia content indexed by blobpedia (CIPs, forum threads, docs, videos, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from live chain state. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative: 'For LIVE on-chain metrics... use get_network_state on THIS server instead.' Also notes zero arguments.
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.