Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_cip_vote_outcome

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find out whether a Canton Improvement Proposal (CIP) was actually acted on ON CHAIN, and how. Returns every DSO governance vote request whose text cites this CIP, with outcomes and dates. This answers 'was it decided', which the mailing-list tools cannot: get_cip_votes reads the discussion on the cip-vote list, this reads the ledger. Example: CIP-0116 (Featured App Locking) is cited in dozens of requests that paused apps for non-compliance. Canton ecosystem only, not Cardano or other CIP schemes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many vote requests to return, newest first. Default 20, max 100. The response states the full count either way.
cip_idYesCIP id, e.g. "CIP-0116", "116", "0116".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 20,
+  "description": "How many vote requests to return, newest first. Default 20, max 100. The response states the full count either way.",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data source is the ledger rather than discussion threads, and it returns the full set of citing vote requests with dates. It stops short of noting auth needs or result-size behavior beyond what the schema states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and return value are front-loaded, and every sentence carries routing value (distinction, example, scope). The CIP-0116 illustration is longer than strictly necessary but does help an agent recognize the data pattern being queried.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return contents (vote requests, outcomes, dates) and the scope limitation. It could say slightly more about the response shape or result size, but it is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (cip_id, limit) are documented in the schema itself, including accepted id formats and pagination bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find out whether a CIP was actually acted on ON CHAIN') and names what is returned (DSO governance vote requests citing the CIP, with outcomes and dates). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, get_cip_votes, and scopes itself to the Canton ecosystem.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames the when-to-use question ('was it decided') and contrasts the alternative: get_cip_votes reads the cip-vote mailing list, this reads the ledger. It also states an exclusion boundary (Canton only, not Cardano or other CIP schemes), so routing is unambiguous.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources