Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_cip_votes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the cip-vote mailing-list messages for a specific Canton Improvement Proposal (CIP), oldest first: the raw discussion trail as sent, with each SV/participant's vote stated in their message body ("… votes in favor / not in favor"). This is the message thread, NOT a pre-computed count; the first message is usually the proposal announcement, not a vote. For the on-chain accept/reject tally use get_cip_vote_outcome. Use for reading who said what on Governance-type CIPs. Not the attachment PDFs (get_cip_attachments) or status timeline (get_cip_history). Canton ecosystem only. Not Cardano or other 'CIP' schemes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many messages (oldest first) to return. Default 25, max 100. The header states the full count and the range shown.
cip_idYesCIP id, e.g. "0117", "0118", or "CIP-0117". Numeric form preferred.
offsetNoSkip this many messages before returning, for paging through a long vote thread.

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 25,
+  "description": "How many messages (oldest first) to return. Default 25, max 100. The header states the full count and the range shown.",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Skip this many messages before returning, for paging through a long vote thread.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: messages are returned oldest-first, the content is raw as-sent text where each SV states its vote in the body, and the first message is typically an announcement rather than a vote. This prevents misreading the payload as a tally. It does not discuss paging output details, but the schema covers those.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and content definition, then disambiguation. Information-dense with no filler, though the parenthetical asides and the trailing 'Canton only / not Cardano' sentences make it denser than strictly needed for a single-purpose read tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a read-only tool with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, ordering, interpretation caveats, sibling routing, and scope boundaries. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and every parameter (cip_id, limit, offset) is documented in the schema including formats, defaults, and the header/count behavior. The description adds only the 'oldest first' ordering hint, which is marginal beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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+resource ('Get the cip-vote mailing-list messages for a specific CIP') and immediately defines the scope: raw message thread, oldest first, NOT a computed count. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_cip_vote_outcome) so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (reading who said what on Governance-type CIPs) and when-not (on-chain tally, attachment PDFs, status timeline), each routed to a named alternative. It even scopes the ecosystem ('Canton only, not Cardano'), removing ambiguity from the overloaded 'CIP' term.

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