Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

search_github_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search across CCPEDIA's indexed GitHub issues (15+ Canton repos). Canton ecosystem only. Use to find prior reports / open bugs / requested features. For PRs use get_proposals (Dev Fund grant PRs) or search with type="github" (broader).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows (default 10).
queryYesFree-text query.
stateNoIssue state filter (default: all).
offsetNoSkip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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 known. The description adds valuable context about the indexed scope (15+ repos, Canton-only, issues not PRs), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each earning its place: function, target use case, and explicit alternative. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 a well-defined scope, explicit usage guidance, and alternatives, the description is sufficient for tool selection. The schema and annotations cover parameters and safety. The description does not explain return format, but the offset parameter in the schema already mentions the response includes full count, so this is adequately covered.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear semantics for all parameters (query, limit, state, offset), including enums and defaults. The description itself does not add parameter-level details, but the schema fully carries that burden, 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?

The description clearly states a full-text search across CCPEDIA's indexed GitHub issues in 15+ Canton repos, with an explicit scope ('Canton ecosystem only'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it searches issues, not PRs, and explicitly names get_proposals as the PR alternative.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases ('find prior reports / open bugs / requested features') and explicitly states when not to use it: 'For PRs use get_proposals (Dev Fund grant PRs) or search with type="github" (broader).' This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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