Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

list_github_discussions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List GitHub Discussions from Canton Network and Digital Asset repositories cached by CCPEDIA, sorted by recency (newest first). Filter by repo or category, or call with no filter to see which repos are present. CANTON-ONLY and read from CCPEDIA's cache, NOT the live GitHub API or the user's own repos (use a GitHub MCP for those). This is GitHub Discussions: distinct from the Canton web forum (get_discussion) and the sync.global mailing lists (list_mailing_threads). Use get_github_discussion for full body + comments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoFilter by owner/name as shown in the unfiltered listing. Repos get transferred, so read the value from a result rather than assuming one.
limitNoHow many discussions to return, newest first. Default 15, max 50.
categoryNoFilter by Discussions category, e.g. "Q&A", "Ideas"

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"How many discussions to return, newest first. Default 15, max 50."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by repo, e.g. \"canton-foundation/docs\""New value: +"Filter by owner/name as shown in the unfiltered listing. Repos get transferred, so read the value from a result rather than assuming one."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it reads from CCPEDIA's cache, is CANTON-ONLY, and sorts by recency. However, it does not disclose potential pagination or rate-limit behavior, though the limit parameter mitigates this.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the core listing behavior, then filters, then data-source caveats, then sibling differentiation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, filtering, sorting, and how to access full details. No critical gaps for an agent to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the 'no filter' use case ('call with no filter to see which repos are present') and the sorting behavior tied to 'limit'. The repo parameter schema already warns against hardcoding, which is reinforced by the context.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'List GitHub Discussions from Canton Network and Digital Asset repositories cached by CCPEDIA, sorted by recency.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_discussion and list_mailing_threads, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'use a GitHub MCP for those' for live/user repos, 'Use get_github_discussion for full body + comments.' Also explains the no-filter call pattern for discovering repos. This goes beyond vague context to explicit alternatives.

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