Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

detect_cip_dependency_chain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Walk the CIP requires: graph from a starting CIP or PR draft. Returns the full chain of prerequisites that must reach Final before the starting proposal becomes implementable, with each prerequisite's current status. Accepts both approved CIPs ("CIP-0112", "0112") and dev-fund PR drafts ("PR-203"). Canton governance only. Use when planning around a CIP that hasn't shipped yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cip_idYesStarting CIP or PR id, e.g. "0112", "CIP-0112", or "PR-203".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it walks the graph, returns full chain with statuses, and is Canton-specific. This provides valuable context beyond the annotations, though it lacks details about error handling or output format.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding essential information: action and result, what the chain contains, accepted input formats, and usage context. No superfluous words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers key aspects: purpose, input, and usage context. It could mention possible errors or the exact status values, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations providing safety assurances.

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?

The single parameter 'cip_id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the accepted formats but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter well.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool walks the CIP 'requires:' graph to find a chain of prerequisites. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Canton governance only' and focusing on CIP dependency chains, which is unique among sibling tools like get_cip or ecosystem_dependency_graph.

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?

The description explicitly advises 'Use when planning around a CIP that hasn't shipped yet.' It also specifies accepted input formats (CIPs and PR drafts). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for broader dependency analysis.

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

All canton-ccpedia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping search/retrieval functionality (search, semantic_search, full_context, search_community, search_github_issues, etc.), and the CIP-specific variants (get_cip, get_cip_history, get_cip_votes, get_cip_mentions, get_cip_citations) are numerous and subtly differentiated. Despite cross-references in the descriptions, the boundaries are fine-grained and an agent is likely to misselect among the 8+ search tools or the 8+ CIP tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_x, list_x, search_x, find_x). Mixed styles or camelCase are absent, and the verb choice (get, list, search, find, detect, compare) is semantically appropriate to each action, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 88 tools, the surface is extremely overgrown for a single server, far exceeding the 25+ 'too many' threshold and approaching the 50+ 'extreme mismatch' category. Even for a comprehensive ecosystem knowledge base, this creates a massive selection burden and makes the tool set unwieldy for agents.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full Canton ecosystem: docs, forum, mailing lists, GitHub, CIPs, governance, validators, versions, deprecations, security, and media. There are no glaring gaps in the knowledge domain; every major resource type has retrieval and analysis tools, making the coverage exhaustive with no obvious dead ends.

Resources