For one CIP, report whether code/grants are tracking the proposal: linked dev-fund PRs, related ecosystem projects, status transitions. Canton governance. Use after find_cip_for_feature to gauge readiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cip_id | Yes | CIP id, e.g. "0112", "CIP-0112", "PR-0088". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / cip_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "CIP id, e.g. \"0112\", \"CIP-0112\", \"PR-0088\".",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / cip_numberRemoved value: -{
- "description": "CIP id, e.g. \"0112\", \"CIP-0112\", \"PR-0088\".",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "cip_number"
-]New value: +[
+ "cip_id"
+]Input schema / properties / cip_number / descriptionPrevious value: -"CIP id, e.g. \"0112\", \"CIP-0112\"."New value: +"CIP id, e.g. \"0112\", \"CIP-0112\", \"PR-0088\"."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already marking readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds value by specifying what will be inspected (PRs, ecosystem projects, status transitions) and the governance context. No contradictions; could disclose limitations but not necessary given annotation coverage.
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 states the core function and scope, second gives usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place, no redundancy or filler.
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 strong annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what will be reported and when to use it. It lacks explicit return-value details, but that is not required here.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and example for cip_id. The description confirms 'one CIP' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'report' for a single CIP and enumerates exact content: linked dev-fund PRs, related ecosystem projects, status transitions. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_cip_for_feature by framing this as a follow-up readiness check.
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 instructs 'Use after find_cip_for_feature to gauge readiness', giving a clear sequential usage context. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is unambiguous enough to score above baseline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.